1946-08-29

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1947, was presented by Hon. Douglas Abbott (Acting Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.
Mr. ABBOTT moved that the estimates be referred to the committee of supply.
Privilege-Mr. Pouliot
Mr. BRACKEN:: May I ask the acting
minister whether this is meant to take the place of the item in the bill now before the house respecting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Mr. ABBOTT:: Yes. I understand it is the intention not to proceed with that bill this year, and therefore a further supplementary estimate is introduced to provide for a loan to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which I believe was provided in one of the sections of the bill.


John Bracken: I want to commend the government for at least the decision to withdraw the bill now before the house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is not withdrawn. I said it would not be proceeded with this session.


Mr. GRAYDON:: A pretty bad bill anyway. PRIVILEGE



MR. POULIOT-FRENCH TRANSLATION OF SPEECH ON AUGUST 19-REPORT IN &quot;GLOBE AND MAIL&quot;, AUGUST 29

Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: I rise to a double question of privilege. In the first place the translation of the speeches made in this house should be accurate. At page 5042 I am reported as using the word "tom cat", which has been translated as "chat sauvage", which in English is wild cat. I did not use the expression wild tom cat; I purposely used the expression tom cat. With regard to the expression wild cat, I reserve it for somebody else. Kenneth C. Cragg, a member of the press gallery, is the reporter of the Globe and Mail, and in the Globe and Mail of to-day-this is another question of privilege-under his name appears the following sentence:
But is it recalled that Mr. Pouliot only last week in different rooms, corridors and places about the parliament buildings, advanced the name of Speaker Gaspard Fauteux as successor to Quebec Liberal leader Adelard Godbout.
Sir, I am not a gossiper, but I thought it was a great tribute to you to mention your name in that regard. That being said, all that the correspondent of the Globe and Mail has invented is a tissue of lies.



QUESTIONS

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland);
1.	How many staff houses were built at New Glasgow, or in Pictou county, Nova Scotia?

2.	What was the cost of (a) land; (b) each building; (c) equipment; (d) maintenance to date?
3.	Who were the contractors?
4.	Have any of the buildings been sold or leased or offered for sale or lease, and if so, to whom, stating prices?
Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	New Glasgow, N.S.-3 staff houses; 1 commissary. Pictou, N.S.-5 staff houses; 1 commissary.
2.	New Glasgow: (a) $1,946.71.	(b) Eachstaff house $33,888.91; total $101,666.73. Commissary, $40,307.55.	(c) $23,608.57.	(d)
$5,216 (from opening January 1943 to November 30, 1945). Pictou: (a) $3,312.77. (b) Each staff house $38,898.40; total $194,422. Commissary, $39,600; (c) $34,208.16. (d) $9,461.81 (from opening June 1942 to October 24, 1945).
3.	Eastern Woodworkers, New Glasgow, N.S.
4.	New Glasgow: The 3 staff houses, the commissary and the land were sold to Meyer Astroff of Topper Industries Limited, New Glasgow, for $21,350. Pictou: The 5 staff houses, the commissary and the land were sold to the dominion government, Department of Labour, for use in their vocational training programme for $26,726.97.


EVAPORATED MM
Mr. KNIGHT:: 1.	What are the wholesale agencies in Saskatoon city through which canned milk is distributed ?
2.	How much such canned milk is distributed by each?
3.	Have any of these agencies applied for extra quotas, and if so, what are they?
4.	What new agencies have applied for quantities of evaporated milk?
5.	What action has been taken by the wartime prices and trade board in regard to such applications for (a) an increase in the supply; (b) a new supply?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	Campbell, Wilson & Millar, Central Wholesale Grocery, Godville Co. Ltd., T. Eaton Co. Ltd., Hudson's Bay Co., Macdonalds' Consolidated, Western Grocers Ltd.
2.	In accordance with government policy, as stated from time to time in the House of Commons by the Minister of Finance, it is not considered to be in the public interest to give details of operations of individual companies.
3.	Yes-all agencies.
4.	Saskatchewan Federated Cooperative.
5.	Because supplies in Canada are substantially below last year's level and required for winter needs, no action has been possible, (a) to'increase supply; (b) to provide nbw supply.

Wheat


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-FINGERPRINTS
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Has any action been taken to destroy the fingerprints of service personnel taken by the armed services during the war, particularly in the case of personnel since discharged?
2.	If not, is such action contemplated, or what is to be done with the said fingerprints?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	No.
2.	No such action is contemplated. The finger prints of service personnel taken by the armed services during the war form part of their service record and as such are retained as part of their documents.


MEETING OF PREPARATORY COMMITTEE OF INTERNATIONAL WHEAT COUNCIL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yesterday the leader of the opposition asked me a series of questions regarding the international wheat council meeting in Washington. I propose to read the questions and give the answers.
The first question is: "What is the object of the meeting?" The answer is: In 1941-42 the Argentine, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States of America initialled a memorandum of agreement which contained a draft convention dealing with production control, control of quotas, stocks, and price controls of wheat. The agreement provided for an international wheat conference to be held, but recognized the impracticability of this during war time. The present meeting is assembled to revise the draft convention into an appropriate proposal for an international wheat agreement to be submitted subsequently to an international wheat conference.
The second question is: "How many nations are represented on the preparatory committee?" The following nations are represented on the preparatory committee: Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Belgium, India, Italy, Netherlands, United Kingdom and the United States of America.
The third question is:	"Who is Canada's
representative at this meeting, if any?" Canada's representative is Doctor C. F. Wilson, director, wheat and grain division, Department of Trade and Commerce.
The last question is:	"Has the U.S.S.R.
been invited to attend?" The U.S.S.R. was invited but they replied that it was not possible to consider attendance at this time.


John Bracken: May I ask a supplementary question? The minister has intimated that this meeting is preparatory to deciding on an international agreement. Does that mean that the government has committed itself to the idea of an international wheat agreement? If so, what will be the effect of such an agreement on the United Kingdom wheat agreement?


James Angus MacKinnon: The government has not committed itself at all. The conversations are merely exploratory; and after they proceed a certain distance, if they do, the matter of government policy will have to be decided. If an international wheat agreement is arrived at, it will supersede the contract recently executed between the United Kingdom and Canada.


John Bracken: In that event the last two years of the United Kingdom wheat agreement would not be in effect?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I should like to ask a supplementary question in connection with what was said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce this morning. Would the world wheat agreement necessarily supersede the British-Canadian agreement, or would there not have to be other negotiations in order to set it aside?


James Angus MacKinnon: Since answering the last question of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) I have received a teletype message from Washington, and from the information contained in it-it is a confidential message-if the international wheat agreement were arrived at on the basis under discussion it would likely mean greater returns for all the years covered by the contract between Great Britain and Canada.


John Bracken: I would like to ask a further supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I asked, if an international wheat agreement were entered into at an early date, would it supersede the United Kingdom wheat agreement. The minister said it would. Later the minister said that if an inernational wheat agreement were made on the basis now contemplated it would mean a larger return to producers. With all respect, I suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce ought to let the house and the public know something of what is now proposed, because of the criticisms that have been levelled at the United Kingdom agreement.
Fuel


James Angus MacKinnon: I am not in a position to give any information to the house on the discussions now under way, but just as soon as there is anything which should be reported to the house I shall be very glad to bring it forward.


AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLIES FOR COMING WINTER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: At the last sitting I promised the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNieol) to make a statement this morning on coal. The statement which I shall make refers only to domestic coal for Ontario and Quebec, which are the areas in which there is a serious deficiency of coal. The Ontario and Quebec area consumes around
6,000,000 tons of anthracite, coke, low volatile bituminous and other high grade fuels suitable for burning in the domestic heating equipment in use in this area. Supplies of anthracite this coal year to date are running somewhat ahead of the previous year. However, the supply situation for coke is in a serious position, and there is very little low volatile bituminous coal coming in from the United States.
Latest statistics show that due to the falling off of imports brought about by the lack of reclaimed and other small-sized coke as used last season, our imports of coal from the United States for domestic purposes will show a drop of some 700,000 tons. In addition, because of the strike in the United States bituminous fields, the low volatile bituminous coal will also be down by some 150,000 tons, a total loss of imported domestic fuel of 850,000 tons. As against this, our imports of anthracite are up by 300,000 tons as at August 13, but this will probably fall off. It is estimated at present that the deficiency in imported domestic fuels as defined above will be about
600,000	tons. In addition, the effects of the United States bituminous strike, the seamen's strike and the present steel strike, will reduce our Canadian coke supply. The present deficiency from this source is about 150,000 tons, making a total deficiency of 750,000 tons, or 12i per cent of our 6,000,000 ton requirement.
These figures are computed on the assurance that the various by-product plants will supply the same quantity of fuel for domestic purposes as last year.
It has already been pointed out that owing to the loss of production during the strikes, the supplying of this quantity to the domestic market would materially reduce the coke

available for the production of pig iron. If pig iron production were continued at last year's rate, a further 300,000 tons of coke that it is planned to place in the domestic market would not be available; hence the total deficiency of domestic fuel in Ontario and Quebec would amount to 1,050,000 tons, or, say, 17% per cent of the total domestic fuel requirements in this area of 6,000,000 tons.
Last year over 250,000 tons of Alberta domestic coal was moved to this area which was not available at the beginning of the fuel year. To overcome this and to help to meet the deficiency in United States supplies, this control has made arrangements with various dirt moving contractors in . western Canada to produce by stripping some 500,000 tons of coal. On the basis of last year's experience, this should make available to Ontario and Quebec some 300,000 tons of Alberta domestic coal. In addition some 175,000 tons of briquettes or other high grade fuel will be diverted from the railways to this market. This makes in total some 225,000 tons of additional fuel from Alberta. However, should a coal strike occur in district 18, Alberta, this supply will not be available.



SUPPLY OF FUEL OIL AND OIL BURNERS

['Agreed.\n(The statement is as follows:)\nRental Regulations-Eviction Control.\nThe rental regulations have given some degree of security to tenants ever since rent control was first introduced. Until the summer of 1945 the landlord who wanted to occupy his own house could do so provided that he gave the tenant adequate notice. The regulations were changed from time to time, the length of notice varying from six to twelve months. Without this protection many landlords might have 1 aken advantage of the\nSupply-Wartime Prices Board', 'shortage of housing to demand higher-than-ceiling rents on pain of immediate eviction. At the same time this protection prevented or minimized the inconvenience and suffering that would have been caused by virtue of the housing shortage.\nDuring 1945 the shortage of housing became progressively more serious. Dwellings which were occupied by tenants were being sold in large numbers for early occupancy by the purchasers. At that time the purchaser could obtain possession of the house if it was needed for himself or for some member of his family 3n giving six months\' notice to vacate. Tenants who had been served notice to vacate felt themselves compelled, in many cases, to purchase houses and, in turn, to serve notice to vacate on the tenants of these houses. By the early summer of 1945 the prospect of widespread evictions throughout the urban areas of Canada had created a serious social problem. In the city of Toronto alone, for example, there were some 3,500 notices to vacate maturing in the three summer months. Many of these notices to vacate had been served upon families or dependents of veterans. There was no alternative accommodation for the many thousands of people involved across Canada. Consequently, the Government - instructed the Prices Board to enlarge the existing system of tenant protection. This was done by Order 537, which imposed an indefinite "freeze" upon all tenants. At the same time, all outstanding notices to vacate were suspended.\nIn order to be fair, those purchasers or landlords who had given the tenants the proper notice to vacate were permitted to go before a court of rental appeals for a hearing. The decisions of the appeal judges in thes cases were based upon an assessment of the relative burden of hardship involved as between landlord and tenant. The one other exception to this indefinite "freeze" related to discharged service personnel.\nThe government recognizes that, in freezing virtually all leases relating to self-contained accommodation, it has drastically interfered with the normal rights of the property owner. This action is justified as an emergency measure designed to avoid far greater dislocation and social distress. Notwithstanding the many individual cases that can be shown to exist where the regulation works great hardship on a man who had purchased a home for the occupation of himself and his family, the situation would be far more desperate if the regulation did not exist. If this regulation were not in force to-day, it would be found that the turnover in houses would be enormously greater, tens of thousands of families would be under threat of eviction, and virtually every tenant family would feel itself insecure. At the same time, the enforcement of rental ceilings would be impossible, in many cases, if landlords were free to give notice to vacate to their tenants, or to threaten to give such notice. It is the extreme housing shortage which has created this situation, and nothing short of a considerable increase in the supply of housing will make it possible to relax this extra-contractual system of tenant protection.\nThe government is aware that some people have bought houses since order 537 was issued in ignorance of the fact that they could not obtain possession for occupancy. There have been cases where the sellers or the agents concerned have refrained from advising the pur-\n[The Chairman.]\nchaser of this condition. The government has done everything it can to acquaint the people with the existence of this regulation and cannot be expected to rectify situations of this kind in favour of the purchaser without nullifying completely the purpose of the regulation. It should be noted that, while order 537 sometimes operates\tto\tmake it\timpossible\tfor a\nveteran to move into a house which he has purchased in recent years, a much greater number of veterans and veterans\' families are protected, as tenants, by the regulation in question.\nSpecial provisions relating to veterans.\nThe "freeze\'\'\tin\tquestion\t(order 537) doesnot apply in certain cases where veterans are involved. Under order 511, passed May 14, 1945, where a\tveteran (or\this wife)\towneda dwelling at\tthe\tdate of\tenlistment,\the is\nentitled to obtain possession of the property for his own occupation on giving the tenant a specified notice, which is never less than three months. The other exception in favour of veterans relates to the case where the accommodation wras occupied by a veteran at the date of enlistment and where the veteran is closely related to the landlord. In such a case the landlord may give the tenant a specified notice to vacate in order to rent the property to the veteran in question. These exceptions to the "freeze" are fair and equitable. They have the effect of enabling many veterans to re-occupy premises which they owned and which they had rented to others while serving writh the armed forces, or wdiich they had rented from relatives previous to joining up.\nIn the case of multiple-family buildings order 511 also allows a landlord to dispossess a tenant (after at least three months\' notice) in order to rent the accommodation to a veteran who is a close relative of the landlord in question. This further exception to the general "freeze" wras also made in the interests of veterans and was supported by representations from veterans\' organizations.\nThe evictions of tenants which are taking place to-day relate mainly to cases of this sort, or to cases originally decided under order 537 where the balance of hardship wras decided by a judge in favour of the landlord, and where the notice to the tenant has now matured.\nIt must be admitted that in certain cases it sometimes happens that both parties are veterans, and one veteran may be evicted in favour of another. This only goes to demonstrate the difficulty of extending still further the list of exemptions to the "freeze" on tenants.\nConclusion\nThe protection nowr given to tenants wras introduced in 1945 because of the emergency caused by the shortage of housing. In that situation it was necessary to take drastic steps to call a halt to the movement of tenants in the interest of the greatest good of the greatest number of people. To be effective, it was necessary to keep the number of exemptions to the rule to a minimum, and the exemptions have been mainly in favour of veterans. The protection of tenants undoubtedly inflicts hardship on a small minority of landlords, and the exemptions in favour of veterans also work hardship on a small number of tenants. In recognizing this we should\n\nSupply-Trade and Commerce\nnot forget that the regulations are intended to serve the interests of the majority of people, and by and large that objective has been achieved.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: In view of the enormous increase in fuel oil equipment for heating purposes all over Canada, which will in future replace the market for coal, is the minister assuming responsibility for an adequate supply of fuel oil?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The coal control is assuming responsibility for seeing that an adequate supply of fuel oil is available this winter. I think I can say that those who depend on oil for heating will be guaranteed a supply.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister a question with respect to heating by oil? What is the position now with respect to obtaining a good supply of oil burners? A number of persons in my constituency have asked me about this matter. Because of the coal shortage there is a move on foot to install oil burners, and some people have told me that it is difficult to get them; others have not had the same trouble. Will the minister clear up that point?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The production of oil burning equipment has increased enormously, but the demand has also increased enormously. There is no government control on the distribution of oil heaters. The only method of obtaining

Conferences with Provinces
them is to apply to a dealer and take such position as can be obtained on the dealers' lists.


Gordon Graydon: Are they in short supply generally?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The supply is not sufficient for the demand.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South) :: May I ask the Minister of Reconstruction if there is anything he can do to expedite the report of the royal commission on fuel? The answer to the whole fuel problem will hinge upon that report. Another thought I have in that connection is that the mines workers will be holding their annual meeting on October 25; and if they are to bring down any comprehensive policy with respect to wages and working conditions it will be necessary that they have this report.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be very glad to convey my hon. friend's remarks to the royal commission on coal. I have already told the house that the report is being prepared,, and I have also requested that it be completed as rapidly as possible. From the information I have I should think the report would be available for the convention my hon. friend has referred to, and I shall make every effort to see that it is.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Cariboo):: I
wish to ask a question of the Minister of Justice, of which I have not sent him notice. If he desires to take it as a notice and answer to-morrow, that will be satisfactory. Is the minister aware that leaders of the textile workers' strike in Valleyfield have been arrested on charges of alleged conspiracy, and that they have been refused bail? Can the minister take any action which will result in their being granted bail? If not, does he think it is conducive to the best law and order to refuse bail to these people?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think I can answer the question right away. I know nothing about the arrest of labour leaders beyond what I have seen in the press, or about the refusal of bail. I must point out that the granting or refusal of bail is a part of the administration of justice and is under the
control of the judicial branch of the sovereignty of the Canadian nation. This parliament exercises legislative sovereignty. The government exercises the executive powers; the judiciary deal with the administration of justice. I have always taken the position that it would be quite improper for the executive or any member of the executive to try to interfere in any way with the process of the courts in the administration of justice.


CONFERENCE WITH PROVINCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Percy Chapman Black: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if any reply has been made to the request of Hon. Angus L. Macdonald, premier of Nova Scotia, made on August 8, that another dominion-provincial conference should be called to make, using Mr. Macdonald's words, at least one more effort to bring about a true solution of the taxation and subsidy agreements. A similar request has been made, I understand, by the premiers of other provinces.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): I do not know that any request has been received from the premier of Nova Scotia. I remember that some weeks ago there was publicity in the newspapers about some public statement made by Mr. Macdonald as to the desirability of there being further meetings of the representatives of the dominion and the provinces. I shall inquire and see if there has been any specific request from him. I do not remember seeing any, but I shall make some inquiries and find out. The most recent communication in that regard was a telegram received from the mayor of Fort William, mayor George R. Inglis, and dated August 16, to which a reply was dispatched on August 22. That reply was communicated to the press, and I think I saw it reproduced in two or three of our newspapers. I do not think it would serve any good purpose to read it into the record here. It contained a statement that negotiations were going on between the federal government and the governments of certain provinces, and that the federal government is prepared to proceed immediately with discussions on the proposals outlined in the budget speech, with any other province which may be interested.
Now, if there is a desire of the provinces to get together and agree upon what they would suggest, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. The situation which arose was that the wartime tax agreements were running
Supply-Fisheries

out, and it had not been found possible, in the meetings which had been held, to arrive at any common agreement. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) said in this house that there was nothing surprising about that. We had been at it only about nine months, and the discussions which preceded confederation took two or three years, and the investigation of the Rowell-Sirois commission also took more than two years. Nevertheless there had arisen a situation which it was necessary to deal with, and we attempted to see if anything could be done with the provinces individually for the purpose of continuing agreements about taxes. Those negotiations have been and are going on.
As I said before, if the provinces now think it would be preferable for them to have some scheme, upon which they were agreed, considered by the government, there is nothing to prevent their meeting and preparing such proposals. There have been many occasions in the past on which the provinces have met together to discuss representations which they wished jointly to make to the federal government. That can be done again.


Percy Chapman Black: Premier Macdonald's request has been widely publicized in the papers.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, we all know wide publicity is given to what is said on almost every controversial question which arises in this country.


Mr. COLDWELL:: The Minister of Justice has just referred to the mayor of Fort William, but he used a name which was not that of the mayor of Fort William. The mayor of Fort William is Mr. Garfield Anderson.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That was my mistake. The telegram was filed from Fort William, but Mayor Inglis, who sent the telegram from.Fort William, is the mayor of Niagara Falls.


Mr. McIVOR:: The mayor of Fort William has good sense.


John Bracken: I gather from the minister's remarks that the government has not taken any initiative toward calling another dominion-provincial conference; is that correct?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is correct.


Major James William Coldwell: The government has not closed the door, has it?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, the government does not close doors on anything which may lead to a satisfactory solution of any problem of public interest.


Gordon Graydon: It looks like a closed door to me.


CANADIAN ARMY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked a question of the Minister of National Defence, to which I was told that I would be given an answer. My question was whether his department or War Assets Corporation were in control of the automobile dump at the Somerset street bridge, where there are thirty or forty new staff cars. Has the minister an answer?


Mr. HUGUES LAPOINTE (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: That is an ordnance depot in Ottawa for the army, and has nothing to do with War Assets Corporation. The vehicles there are the property of the army.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to know when those thirty or forty new vehicles are to be sold, because there is a doctor in my district-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: -who has been trying to get a car for the last three months, and who will have to give up practice unless he can get one.

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


DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
76. Departmental administration,, $.170,340.
Mr. STUART (Charlotte):: When the house adjourned last evening I was discussing the matter of floor prices for primary products. I have been given to understand that it would be an enormous task to have adjustments made by which this protection would include all primary producers. During the war the necessary machinery was assembled and put into effect to enforce price control. We all agree, I believe, that a fine job was done in this country under capable management. If this could be accomplished under great pressure owing to increased buying power and an acute shortage of necessary supplies, I feel confident that, from experience gained during that period, we have the machinery already in operation that can solve our problem and put all primary producers of this country in the same position as that oempied by the farmers
[Mr. St. Laurent..!

Supply-Fisheries
of western Canada. Why there should be any distinction between east and west I fail to understand.
On August 14 the Minister of Agriculture, speaking in this chamber, had this to say- Hansard, page 4809.
We have contracts for pork; we have contracts for cheese; we have contracts for butter: we have contracts for milk; and all are on the same basis for a long period of time at a stabilized price ... A beef contract is under negotiation. I think the final touches will be put to it while I am over in England during the next week or two.
When the present contract for wheat over a five year period is added to those just mentioned, 1 believe you will all agree the agricultural industry is adequately protected, and I wish to congratulate the minister upon establishing what I believe to be the greatest protective policy that any primary producer has ever enjoyed in the history of this dominion.
I might also mention in connection with this matter the act for the support of the prices of agricultural products during the transition from war to peace. This was assented to on August 15, 1944. One portion of it I should like to put on the record;
10. (2) Expenditures, for the purposes of this act, other than administrative expenses provided for under subsection one of this section, shall be paid by the Minister of Finance on the requisition of the board, out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, under and by virtue of the authority of the governor in council on the recommendation of treasury board in an amount not to exceed in the aggregate two hundred millions dollars.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is $200 million provided to protect agriculture. There is no mention, in relation to that vast sum, of the fishing industry or any other primary produces in the Dominion of Canada. So I feel that there was neglect somewhere in that the other primary producers were not considered when that agreement was drawn up.
In order to implement these several agreements, connected with the Minister of Agriculture's discussions on stabilizing prices, several trips by him were necessitated, as agreements such as these are not completed satisfactorily without extended negotiations and much study by both the exporter and the importer. Owing to the fact that the natural markets for our fish and fish products are on this side of the Atlantic, contacts could be made with much less difficulty than were encountered by the Minister of Agriculture, and much time and expense could be saved in organizing international gatherings.
After listening attentively to the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture as to the protection given the agricultural industry, I feel that great discrimination is being shown
against the other primary producers of this country if every member of this house does not insist that the same long-term protection be given one and all. My personal opinion is that the protection given the agricultural industry must include every province in this dominion and every individual producer within these provinces; also that steps must be taken immediately, regardless of the enormous task involved, to establish and maintain contracts for the protection of all primary producers.
Surely the fisheries department would not be satisfied to sit idly by while a select group is singled out for special recognition and protection, nor could members representing counties where the fishing industry is of great importance do other than insist most emphatically that the products of the sea take their rightful place, and demand that the same treatment be accorded this industry as has been given agriculture. Let us not forget that the real wealth of this or any country can come from three sources only, the land, sea and forests, and now is the time to take the precautionary measures necessary to give adequate protection to the producers of this wealth.
Individual effort excluding the other groups would, I feel, increase distrust and intensify division at a time when equality and unity should be our aim. Assistance and guidance from this government is necessary if that aim is to be achieved.
Speaking on the fisheries estimates on December 17, 1945, I endeavoured to impress upon this department the important part the lobster fishery is taking to-day in the general welfare of the maritime provinces. Some years it is at the top in dollar value, and never below second place for a great many years. The legal season for lobster fishing in all parts of the maritime provinces is of short duration; it would not average more than five or six months in any one section, which greatly adds to the importance of the lobster fishery, as it gives the fishermen the opportunity of engaging in other branches of the industry during the closed season.
Winter fishing is the most profitable, as prices at this season of the year are usually higher owing to the uncertainty of weather conditions and the greater hazards that must be encountered by the fishermen. If they are able to operate three days weekly during this season of the year it would be considered a good average, and there is always the danger of a bad storm that would practically destroy all their equipment and leave them no choice but to cease operations for
554G
Supply-Fisheries

that year, and go to great expense to prepare for the next season. As I have before stated in this house, no part of this equipment can be insured. The fishermen must always be in position to finance his own business and therefore must have a working capital.
A few weeks ago two thousand live lobsters were shipped from St. Andrews, New Brunswick, to British Columbia. This is another experiment on the Pacific coast to build up a lobster fishery. This province has experimented with lobsters before, unsuccessfully, but knowing the value this industry would be to their fishermen and to the province generally they are determined that regardless of expense and discouraging results obtained in previous ventures everything possible must be done and every suggestion given careful consideration before admitting defeat.
I regret this department does not take the same attitude with respect to the value of the lobster fisheries on the Atlantic coast. I am thoroughly convinced in my own mind that lobster hatcheries can be operated successfully by this department in the maritime provinces, if they are given the same enthusiastic consideration that is given hatcheries for the propagation of fresh water fish to attract tourists to our provinces. Several years ago a few lobster hatcheries were operated in eastern Canada. I have information from a reliable source, a gentleman with great knowledge of the fishing industry and many years of experience with this department, that very little interest was taken in these hatcheries when they were in operation, and practically every person employed in their operation was a politician with no knowledge of this type of work and little interest other than his pay cheque.
Since suggesting lobster hatcheries to this department nearly one year ago I have been informed that the cost connected with their operation and the result obtained does not warrant the expenditure. This information, I have been given to understand, was obtained by scientific research and after consultation with officials who are responsible for maintaining hatcheries in the United States.
To show the committee that the same check is not made concerning sport fish, I wish to relate one incident to which I was an eye witness. At Loch Lomond in St. John county we have a hatchery maintained by this department, and from the number employed directly and indirectly the cost of operation without doubt is a large sum. In the year 1942 a few hundred small bass were taken from this hatchery in about twenty-five large cans. These were taken in the morning to

Blacks Harbour, a distance of over fifty miles by truck. There they were loaded on the Department of Fisheries patrol boat and taken across the bay of Fundy to Nova Scotia by water, another distance of fifty miles or more, taking eight or nine hours. During this trip salt water had to be bailed in the cans frequently to keep the fish cool. Arriving in Nova Scotia the cans were again loaded on trucks and taken several miles to a lake. By this time it was late at night and the truck could not drive within quite some distance of the lake, which made it necessary with the aid of flashlights to carry these heavy cans from the truck to the lake over a very rough path. Men stumbled and fell, spilling some fish over this wood road, but the job was completed about midnight. The following day the boat returned to Blacks Harbour, and the gentlemen in charge of operations from Loch Lomond reported a job well done. Just what these fish cost the people of Canada I do not know, but I should be interested to know the cost from the time they were spawn until they were delivered to their final destination. This is one case in many, and has been brought to the minister's attention for one purpose only, to prove that where there is a will there is always a way. And if the same determination and energy could be injected into matters pertaining to commercial fishing, much could be done to improve the industry.
I do not wish to minimize the contribution science has made to this country and to the world, but I think that in some cases practical experience is worth while, and the two together could work wonders. There are in the employ of the research board two gentlemen whom I know well. They have been in their employ for nearly thirty years. Neither of these gentlemen is a scientist, but over that period of years they have had great practical experience in all parts of the maritime provinces and all waters adjacent in connection with work having to do with the fishing industry. They have been given some tough assignments by the research board, but have always managed to come through with the required information. I should be pleased to see either of these men given a free hand by the fisheries department in connection with lobster hatcheries. With the aid of the scientific staff, the two working harmoniously with full support of this department could, I am convinced, come through once more with the desired results. The two gentlemen I have in mind are Captain A. E. Calder and
E.	A. Rigby. Their record with this department will, I am sure, substantiate any statement I have made. If they were given the

Supply-Fisheries
opportunity and the support I have suggested and decided after a fair trial that lobster hatcheries were not feasible, then I myself would be thoroughly convinced that the idea could be forgotten. But until such time as every conceivable idea has been tested and all the knowledge at the disposal of this department coordinated without result, I will continue to remind those responsible that one of our greatest industries is being terribly neglected.
From a memorandum presented to the secretary of the fisheries research board, dated April 2, 1946, regarding lobster hatcheries, signed by A. W. H. Needier, J. L. Tremblay and D. C. Wilder, it would appear the operation of lobster hatcheries would not be profitable except on a purely experimental basis. Great emphasis is laid on the cost of establishing and maintaining rearing stations. To my knowledge the cost in connection with other hatcheries has never been considered in relation to the results obtained, and since the year 1917 no effort has been made to experiment with rearing stations, although millions of dollars have been found for other experiments that will never return dollar value to this country and were never intended to.
I notice in the estimates for 1946 that the salaries for employees of the fisheries research 'board alone are over one-half million dollars. Why any additional help would be required to carry on this proposed service, I fail to understand. The operation and maintenance for this branch alone is three quarters of a million dollars, not including the fish culture branch, for which the estimate is $230,000; $140,000 of this amount is for salaries and wages. This would make a total of $643,000 in wages paid the research board and the fish culture branch. Surely with this amount available the personnel could be found to maintain lobster hatcheries.
Another section of the report, page 2, states that after the hatcheries were closed in 1917, reliance was placed on the protection of berried lobsters rather than on artificial hatching of the eggs. Just how this protection has been given is not explained to my knowledge. The regulation which affords this protection in most cases has forced lobster dealers to dispose of the female lobsters before they spawn, which I feel is very harmful and in no way a protection. This is done by giving fisheries inspectors authority to liberate berried lobsters which were bought and paid for legally and held in pounds several weeks or months before the spawn appeared. These inspectors have authority to liberate these lobsters without remunerating the owner, although they were bought and held legally. To avoid this
injustice the dealer separates the females when they are impounded and holds them in a separate compartment. The time of spawning is known to this operator who, by this regulation, is forced to sell all female lobsters just before they spawn in order to protect his investment, as the actual loss he would be obliged to sustain would in some cases amount to thousands of dollars. In other words, the pound operator is compelled by this regulation to kill the lobster before it spawns. This, I believe you will agree, is anything but protection.
On page 3 of this same report there appears a table of lobsters produced by hatcheries in the state of Maine for the years 1938 to 1945, inclusive. The average over that period is about 300,000 annually.


Mr. BRIDGES:: May I interrupt to point out that page 3 of the report refers to rearing ponds. The hon. member stated it referred to hatcheries.
Mr. STUART (Charlotte); These figures may be correct. However, I have figures for the years 1942 and 1943 taken from a pamphlet published by the United States department of the interior, fish and wildlife service. Under the column "Summary by states of the distribution of fishes," the number of lobsters distributed in the state of Maine for the year 1942 was 4,898,510; for 1943, 4,008,420; total for the two years about 9,000,000. The table previously given by this department for the same period shows 343,000. I am unable to state which is correct.
The report of the fisheries research board states also:
Artificial hatching and rearing not responsible for increased Maine lobster catches.
In the same report it states that lobster rearing began in Maine in the year 1938 and has continued since that time. Also included is table No. 2, giving the lobster catch in pounds for the years 1935 to 1945 inclusive.
I wish the committee to note that it takes about five years from the time a rearing station is started before any results are obtained. The catch in pounds is shown from 1935 to 1945 in the following table:
Year	Catch in pounds
1935	 7,687,200
1937		 7,348,500
1938		 7.659.200
1939		 7,570.800
1940		 7,643.005
1941		 8,937.182
1942		 8,403.793
1943		 14,468.025
1944		 13,300.000
1945		 19,130,000
Supply-Fisheries

The report states definitely that a great increase has occurred over that period. It states that hatcheries are not responsible for the increase but fails to explain or suggest what is responsible for greatly improved conditions.
From information contained in this report of the research board, acknowledgement is made that no action has been taken on their part during the past thirty years to acquire knowledge regarding the rearing of lobsters, although during that time the lobster catch in certain years was very low and in certain areas lobster fishermen were practically forced out of the business.
I know of no way in which during the past thirty years the efforts of the research board and fish culture branch and the funds at their disposal could have been used to greater advantage than with experiments that might have been beneficial to one of the greatest industries in the maritime provinces. Why this experiment was discarded is still not explained in their report, and it certainly was not justified in the opinion of maritime lobster fishermen, particularly when it is evident that large funds have been found for experimenting with fresh water or game fish upon which no citizen would depend for a livelihood.
I can definitely assure this department that they would receive little criticism if this experiment were given a fair trial over a period of years and failed to produce the required result, because the fishermen who are greatly concerned would be convinced that the research board and the fish culture branch were interested in their welfare and had at least tried to be of assistance.


Percy Chapman Black: This is an important department dealing with a great natural resource that we have in the maritimes and on the Pacific coast. I do not propose to take up very much time at this stage of the session.
The Department of Fisheries was established on the recommendation of the Duncan commission, composed of Sir Andrew Rae Duncan* Doctor Cyrus Macmillan, who had a seat in this house for a number of years and was highly respected by all of us, and the late Judge Wallace, at the request of the government of Nova Scotia, when I was a member. The department has done splendid work in the intervening years, and I feel it is doing a splendid work to-day. The minister is certainly applying himself to the needs and requirements of the fishermen in Canada. He may have been at a considerable disadvantage in the beginning at least, because he belongs to the legal profession and represents an inland constituency. On the other hand he is sup-

ported by an able staff, some of whom come from my province. I should like to name them but I shall not do so.
I was very much impressed, Mr. Chairman, by the addresses made on these estimates by the hon. member for New Westminster, the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, the hon. member for Queens, Prince Edward Island (Mr. McLure), the hon. member for Charlotte and others. Cumberland is not a big fishing centre, although it is bounded by both the waters of the Northumberland strait and by the bay of Fundy. It has a large lobster interest, the centre of the world's lobster supply, and it has also a considerable smelt fishing interest, as well as oysters. All these fishing activities can be expanded, and I believe this applies in a very large measure to the, oyster industry. There is no better oyster in the world than is produced in the waters of Cumberland county and nearby counties. These oyster areas are producing only a small fraction of their potential capacity to produce oysters. In Cumberland county, in my constituency, we have a very considerable smelt industry, which is followed by the local residents. The smelt is one of the tastiest salt-water fish that is produced, and if it is marketed in a fresh state and properly prepared there is no finer fish than the smelt which are marketed late in the season and in the early winter. We , have in Cumberland small smelt rivers, with shoal waters and long sand banks. In these rivers the ice forms early in the season. Recognizing this condition the Department of Fisheries for a number of years established an earlier season to enable the local smelt fisherman to get a fair catch and market it at a time when the smelt would first come on the market in this country and in the United States. These waters were closed weeks or months earlier because of ice conditions, but unfortunately the department made the season uniform and so our fishermen were denied the privilege of a full season which they had enjoyed over a number of years. I would ask the minister again to investigate and see if in view of the special conditions an earlier season could be established for these shoal waters and small rivers in Cumberland and Westmorland counties.
The activities of these fishermen were also interfered with last year by smelt fishermen who came in from distant points and established what are called box traps at the very mouth of these rivers, which interfered with the access of the smelt up the rivers and ruined the catch of the regular smelt fishermen. I feel that the department should investigate that question and provide all the advantages that are possible for the regular

Supply-Fisheries
net fishermen who have been pursuing that occupation for many years, and not allow outsiders to come in and block their efforts and interfere with their business and living.
As I said this is a very important department dealing with a great natural resource. The fishermen themselves endure great hardships, and they have suffered over the years. At the time the Duncan commission made its report some of them were receiving only 50 cents per hundred pounds for whole fish, from 50 to 75 cents. There was no adequate market, and the fish were not properly prepared and shipped quickly to the markets. Much has been done in the intervening years to improve the price of fish and to assist in its marketing, and I want to express my appreciation to the minister and his officials for what they have done.
I would also point out the desirability of improving and protecting the sport fishing opportunities in Nova Scotia and in the maritime provinces generally. This is one of the great attractions for our own people and for the tourist. The department has made some efforts through hatcheries to increase the angling and sport fisheries, as well as salmon and other commercial fisheries, but a great deal more could be done. I do not believe that anything is more attractive to the tourist than successful sport fishing. I ask the minister to give the attention of his department to the improving and planting of as large a quantity of fish and oysters as possible and to protect these fisheries and the regular fishermen in getting their hazardous living, so that not only may the local people have the benefit of improved trout and sport fishing, but the fish will be there in greater numbers for the tourists who come to our part of Canada.
I will not delay the committee any longer. This is one of the most important natural resources pursued by men who carry on their occupation under great hardship, and I am pleased that the returns they have been receiving in the last few years have been more adequate than formerly. It will be the object of the department, I am sure, to see that these prices are maintained and that there are adequate markets for the fishermen of the maritime provinces.


Mr. LANGLOIS:: I listened attentively to and have studied the statement made yesterday afternoon in this chamber by the Minister of Fisheries. Though his new policy relative to the inspectorship does not and will not apply to the fisheries of my county, I wish to comment briefly upon it.
The Department of Fisheries is taking a most important step in the right direction by introducing this policy. Surely the minister deserves to be congratulated on this timely innovation. He had no need to apologize, as he seemed to be doing yesterday, for breaking new ground, and I trust he will keep on doing so whenever he deems it necessary. By .thus injecting new blood into his department and by planning for the future he is working in the best interests of the fishermen of Canada. In addition to securing a staff of trained inspectors for his department he is at the same time helping along a most deserving class of our Canadian society by opening up new careers to our worthy returned soldiers.
I also appreciate the idea of having men charged with the duty of seeing the regulations complied with, who will help along our fishermen and act-I like to use the minister's own words here-as educationists. I must add that I did not expect anything else from the hon. gentleman. Since my election to this parliament indeed I have always found in the course of my numerous dealings with him the same spirit of cooperation on his part that he is himself to-day going to request from his officers in their dealings with the fishermen.
I said in my opening remarks that the fishermen in my county were not going to benefit by this new policy. I explained the other day in this house that, since 1922, the fisheries of my province have come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial legislature, and I gave in some detail the advantages which were then lost for . ever to the Quebec fishermen who, like the fishermen of other provinces, contribute to the federal treasury. I need not therefore repeat here my views in this respect. I leave it to those who were at the time and who are now responsible for this only exception in the administration of our Canadian fisheries to shoulder their responsibility and to compensate the losses suffered by our Quebec fishermen under the pretense of provincial autonomy. I hope that at least they will have the courage to follow the fine example set by the federal department of fisheries, and that, if their so-called provincial autonomy is not at stake, they will endeavour to make similar arrangements with both the Department of Labour and the Department of Veterans Affairs to achieve the same end in their own sphere.
I must also congratulate the minister on, and thank him for, having gifted my county with a most modern experimental fishing station. I hope that in the very near future this establishment will also provide a meteorological service, which is so much needed by our fisher-

Supply-Fisheries

men. This affords the Minister of Fisheries an opportunity to reward our fishermen for the great sacrifices they have been asked to make and for the loss they have been asked to suffer by their Quebec leaders.
I have but one more remark to make, and it concerns our present policy regarding the export of salted fish. As this matter stands to-day, no producer can export salted fish if he was not in the trade during the base period of 1941-42. The result is that this trade is closed to newcomers, unless-and I appreciate this exception-the applicant for the export permit is a veteran of our armed services, a buffer having been provided for such cases. However, many examples have been brought to my attention during the past fishing season where the fishing trade was greatly handicapped by this 1941-42 quota rule. I cite here a few of these examples. A producer who has a great number of fishermen fishing for his account has filled his orders for say, fresh or frozen cod, but the fish are still coming in in great quantities from the sea. Instead of dumping the catch he decides to produce salted fish. Since the only market for his salted fish open to-day is in the United States, he applies for an export permit. The application is turned down, because, unfortunately for him, he was not in this kind of export business during the 1941-42 period; and therefore he is left with the fish on his hands. Another example is the one which occurred frequently, according to my information, during the past- fishing season in my county. All the frozen space in this particular fishing village was taken up on account of a more abundant catch during a couple of exceptionally good fishing days, or on account of lack of transportation usually caused by lack of refrigeration cars at the time. The producers who had to absorb the incoming catches were faced with the problem either - of salting away the fish with no open market in sight, if they were not eligible for export permits according to the 1941-42 regulations, or of asking their fishermen to stop fishing for two or three days when fishing was good.
I think that these examples will suffice to illustrate my point and to show the disastrous consequences of this policy on our fishing trade. I am told that some of our producers had to resort to the expedient of asking some Montreal or Quebec brokers for permission to use the quotas which most of the brokers had accidentally acquired during the base period by placing orders on outside markets, though they were not in the trade before and never have been since. I must add that in all cases brought to my attention these lucky brokers
[Mr. LangloisJ
did not hesitate to lend their firm's quotas, provided, of course, that substantial remuneration was received for this good service.


Mr. MacINNIS:: That also was an accident.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I know that these regulations are entangled in international food agreements, but I think that this situation, which is most detrimental to our fishermen, must be remedied forthwith. Perhaps, if I may offer a suggestion, a policy such as the one adopted recently by the timber control to regulate the quantum of the production going both in the domestic and in the foreign markets could be satisfactorily worked out in this instance without penalizing the producers who were not in the export trade during the base period. I know that the minister has been very busy struggling to tackle this problem, and I hope that my remarks will urge him to keep on, working in this direction and that a solution will be found in the near future.


Angus MacInnis: Because of the importance of the subject with which we are dealing I regret that it is necessary for one to be brief at this time. First we have the important statement made by the minister yesterday afternoon in connection with which hon, members representing constituencies either adjacent to or in areas where people make their living by fishing, would like to ask some questions. I shall ask the minister certain questions later in regard to his statement. Then we have the speech made by the member for New Westminster, which merits consideration which I fear we shall not be able to give it at this time. Following that is the question of marketing which was raised by the hon. member for Charlotte. These are all questions of the utmost importance and should have a thorough airing when the estimates of the Department of Fisheries are under discussion.
It is my hope that at some time or other the estimates of the Department of Fisheries will be called first instead of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, so that those of us who are interested in the fishing industry may have the same chance to go as thoroughly into matters pertaining to that department as do those who are interested in agriculture go into the agriculture estimates. However, that is not possible at this late stage of the session.
Now that the war is over, great difficulties confront the fishing industry on both coasts. I do not pretend to have as great a grasp of the fishing industry as has the hon. member for New Westminster, who has made it a special study for many years, but I am quite sure that given the proper attention, the fish

Supply-Fisheries
packs, particularly the salmon pack on the Pacific coast, could be more than doubled in a period of four or five years. All that would have to be done to accomplish this does not lie wholly with the federal Department of Fisheries; a great deal would have to be done by the provincial governments.
On the Pacific coast there is a possibility that the fishing industry may become overcrowded. A great many people are going into that industry, and if it is not carefully watched there may be more people in. it than can make a living out of it. These are all important matters which we should have a longer time to discuss.	.
Referring to the question raised by the hon. member for Charlotte as to prices and marketing; I believe that while the war was a very terrible experience, one thing at least has come out of it. People have learned that by proper control and, regulation production can be assured, together with proper rewards to those who actually do the work. We have learned something that the producers of all sorts of commodities will not give up willingly. I repeat that I hope the minister will at the next session so arrange matters that his estimates will come before us earlier.


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: I was very much interested in the minister's plans for the expansion of his department. I do not intend to say anything on the programme or on the appointment of inspectors which has been proposed. Before I proceed, however, I wish to say that the minister to-day has the confidence of all who are interested in the fishing industry. This places a great responsibility on him, and I know that his administration will fully justify the confidence placed in him. I intend to say something on a matter which was covered in the fine speeches delivered by the hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, namely, the position of our fishermen off the Nova Scotia coast and on what we call the Sable Island and Quero banks.
This question presents two problems. One has to do with the destruction of the fishermen's nets, trawls and gear by steam trawlers. The other problem has to do with the conservation of the fish population now existing in those waters.
The first question as to the destruction of gear is not a new one in Nova Scotia. It has been brought up on many occasions in the past. This question was brought to the attention of the minister of marine and fisheries over twenty years ago. In 1924 a petition signed by fifty or sixty fishing masters protested against the destruction of their nets and gear 63260-349J
in the waters in or near Sable Island banks. The Sable Island banks lie southwest of the Quero banks. The petition was sent to the department of marine and fisheries of that day. Many declarations were sent accompanying it. These declarations, which were made by masters of fishing schooners, set out the particulars in detail of the damage done to the nets, and also in most cases gave the nationalities of the owners of the trawlers, as well as the names of the trawlers.
In consequence of those representations the government provided a protection vessel, the Arras to patrol the fishing banks off Sable island. The question of depredations by trawlers was also raised before the royal commission which was set up to investigate the fisheries of the maritime provinces and the Magdalen islands. This commission was headed by the late Hon. A. K. Maclean, who at the time was president of the Exchequer Court of Canada. There were several members on the commission, one of whom was the Hon. Cyrus Macmillan, who was afterwards minister of fisheries. The commission made its report in 1928. I should like to read one or two extracts from the report, which sets out clearly and concisely the complaints of the Nova Scotia fishermen in respect of the operation of foreign trawlers at that time. I might add that there was a minority report by the Hon. A. K. Maclean, dealing with trawlers. However, in respect of this question of the destruction of fishing nets and gear the commission as a whole were in complete agreement.
At page 93 of the report there is this statement:
Under the second general heading of direct protection of the fishermen, two objections to steam-trawlers were expressed to us-that the steam-trawlers are foreign-owned and foreign-manned, and that they destroy fishermen's gear without making restitution. With reference to the first of these protests, six of the ten trawlers now operating from ports in the maritime provinces are said to be owned in Canada; and the majority of the crews are said to be naturalized British citizens. This objection may therefore be considered as relatively unimportant. But the contention that steam-trawlers destroy the fishermen's gear was supported by well substantiated statements by many fishermen who themselves had suffered loss. At Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, the captains' association was represented before us by counsel who stated that the damage to gear of some of the Lunenburg fishing fleet by steam-trawlers amounted in recent years to at least five thousand dollars. We were told by several fishermen that it is sometimes the practice of steam-trawlers to set their fishing course where other fishing vessels have taken up their position, and that they destroy, particularly during their night fishing operations, the gear that lies in the track of their trawl. In Great Britain, there have been many prosecutions of operators of steam-trawlers for such destruction of the gear of other fishermen and
Supply-Fisheries

many convictions have resulted. There, however, the aggrieved fisherman may place his case, for equitable adjustment, before a general court specially established for this purpose. The Canadian shore fisherman has no such privilege; he has to depend on his own effors to protect his rights and his property, and his efforts are usually futile. France, it is said, maintains a light cruiser or patrol boat to enforce discipline among French steam-trawlers operating on the banks; and we were told that the Canadian hospital ship on these fishing grounds endeavours to provide protection for Canadian fishermen's
fear. But the statements made to us by many shermen indicate that the protection is far from adequate.
Then the report goes on to say that- Beyond her territorial waters, Canada has no jurisdiction. The high seas are free to all nations as fishing grounds, and no country alone can prevent the steam-trawlers of other countries from operating there with their own methods and in their own way.
The two important questions above, which call for consideration, are the taking of immature fish and the destruction of fishermen's gear. They are questions that can be disposed of solely by international negotiations and arrangements. We, therefore, recommend that an effort be made by the government of Canada to bring about an international conference or negotiations among the nations from which steam-trawlers now operate on the fishing banks of the North Atlantic, with a view to making international arrangements or agreements for the regulating of all fishing vessels on the banks, particularly for the protection of fishermen's gear and for the more complete conservation of the fisheries in those areas. The desirability of such negotiations has frequently in the past been discussed and advocated, but no practical or definite plan has yet been formulated.
Those are extracts from the majority report of the commission. The Hon. A. K. Maclean, in his minority report with reference to this matter, had this to say:
Complaints were made to the commission, particularly at Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, concerning the damage done to line trawlers and fishing gear by Canadian and foreign trawlers. Such damage occurs in international waters. This being the case, regulations to effectively alleviate or end these complaints must be the subject of international action. In the North Sea, where fishermen of many nations are engaged in fishing, it was found necessary to regulate the manner and methods of fishing, and to police the fishing areas. To achieve this end a convention between Great Britain, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France and Holland was entered into, in 1882. It is said that this convention has in a large degree accomplished its purpose. For the same reason, as well as others to be later mentioned, I would recommend that the government of Canada take the proper steps to secure, if possible, an international conference representative of the countries whose citizens fish on the North Atlantic fishing grounds, with a view to the enactment of international regulations governing the operation of trawlers in these waters, and the punishment of offences against such regulations.
I said a few minutes ago that this question of the destruction of gear and nets of 
fishermen is not new. In the course of my law practice I have been concerned with several cases where fishing schooners have been run down by trawlers. One of these, which is a typical case, and reference to which may be useful, concerned the vessel Mahaska. This was a Lunenburg fishing schooner which was run down by a French trawler in 1929, and sank as a result. The material facts are set out in two or three sentences of the judgment of Mr. Justice Mellish, the admiralty judge who tried the action. I quote:
This is an action for damages by collision. The Mahaska is a fishing schooner. On the 22nd March, 1929, she was lying at anchor near Sable island banks.
I have said that the Sable Island banks lie immediately southwest of the Quero banks which were mentioned yesterday by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. The judgment goes on to say:
At about two a.m. on said date she was when so lying rammed and sunk by the defendant ship -a steam trawler. The weather at the time was fine and clear.
In that case two lives were lost and the schooner sank in four minutes. It was only because of the skill of the members of the crew handling the dories that a much greater loss of life was prevented. What I wish to bring to the attention of the committee is this, that so far as I know no action has ever been taken to implement the recommendations of the royal commission that an international conference be held with a view of making agreements for the regulating of fishing vessels on the banks.
The second problem which is presented in connection with the Quero banks is that of the conservation of the fish. Some question was raised yesterday as to the international law bearing on this subject. It is true textbooks say that the fish in the high seas are the property of the persons who first catch them, and the jurisdiction of a country extends over adjacent waters only to the three-mile limit. That may have been international law when these textbooks were written, but law can, I suggest, become obsolete or should not be followed because of changed circumstances. The world has changed since the days when these principles of law were first enunciated: it has become smaller. Te experience we have had of recent years shows that international law as known at one time is not respected generally by all nations. The Canadian Bar Association is meeting to-day in Winnipeg, and I read in the morning papers that one of the questions to be considered there is the codification of international law.

Supply-Fisheries


Mr. REID:: There is no international law on the three-mile limit.


William Chisholm Macdonald: It has never been codified, but I think it has generally been accepted in British countries that the three-mile limit was the extent of the limit over which British power extends. That is modified in many cases by conventions and by agreements. But I would say that the mere fact that that was the law does not mean that that law should continue to exist as it is. It never had any scientific or logical basis. I think it was settled on the basis that when the question arose the range of a coastal gun was three miles. But we know to-day rockets go hundreds of miles, to say nothing of the distances which bombs from aeroplanes can be carried.
The hon. member for New Westminster referred to a proclamation of President Truman which was issued last December. It related to fisheries in waters contiguous to the United States. I have read the operative part of that document, which appears in Hansard, August 28, page 5524. It seems to me that this proclamation expressly reserves the rights of fishermen of other nations, and it also reserves navigational rights. It does not go so far as to provide that the United States can legislate in respect of waters which have been fished by their own nationals in common with nationals of other countries. The order provides, dealing with fishing activities in areas of the high seas contiguous to the United States, that-
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, explicitly 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.
I take that to mean that if you have areas where the fishing was carried on solely by the nationals of the United States, then United States can make regulations dealing with the activities of the fishermen engaged on the particular area. On the other hand, if it is an area which has been fished not only by nationals of the United States but also by nationals of other countries, the control by regulation of the area must take place in consequence of an agreement arrived at between the countries concerned.
I mention these reservations in order to point out that proclamations alone will not cure the troubles of our Nova Scotia off-shore fishermen. I see no objection at all to the Canadian government issuing a proclamation which would follow the lines of President Truman's proclamation; in fact there may be a distinct advantage, because the mere assertion or declaration of our right to the control of fisheries over certain areas may of itself begin to establish a prior claim to those fisheries.
The banks with which the Nova Scotia fishermen are most concerned have I think been fished at times by nationals of other countries, and before any controls over the fisheries were exercised negotiations would have to be entered into with these other countries. At the same time there could be no possible objection that I can see to a declaration of our intention to establish conservation zones. The purpose will be to conserve the fish, and that is in effect the conservation of the food supply of a great part of Canada. It is proved, I believe, beyond question by those who have given scientific study to the matter that the new methods of fishing and constant fishing with those improved methods will deplete any fishery unless proper measures are taken for the control.
That brings up another question, to which the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg referred, that of an improved patrol service on the fishing banks. I think that is really the immediate problem which now faces the Department of Fisheries. The proclamation can be made, and we can assert our rights in these international waters, but in the meantime the loss of nets and fishing gear will continue to go on. I suggest to the Minister of Fisheries that we might have considered by the government the amalgamation of the water services carried on by the government by the formation of a coast guard service or in some other manner. Five government departments maintain marine services at the present time, and this quite apart from those carried on by the navy. These services include the protection of fisheries, aids to navigation, lighthouses, the protection of customs revenue, hydrographic surveys and air-sea search and rescue work. The departments carrying on this work are the R.C.A.F., the R.C.M.P., the Department of Transport, the Department of Mines and Resources with its hydrographic section, and the Department of Fisheries.
Recommendations for the formation of a Canadian coast guard service have been made by the maritime marine federation, the Nova Scotia federation of labour and the white ensign association of Halifax. As was pointed

Supply-Fisheries
out by the hon. member for Queens-Lunen-burg, maritimers are a seafaring people. Many of them earn their living by fishing on the high seas or serving as seamen. They are sea-minded; they have a natural liking for the sea, and the formation of a coast guard service would appeal to them. They are not alone in advocating the formation of a coast guard service. The commission on veterans legislation headed by Colonel Bovey found that a coast guard service would 'be justified, not only for the employment of discharged naval personnel but also on the grounds of actual need.
If the amalgamation of the water services of the various departments other than the navy is desirable, and I think it is, the most satisfactory solution would appear to lie in the formation of a coast guard service. The existence of so many departments maintaining marine services seems illogical and may result in some duplication of government expenditure. There is a further consideration. Ships for these various services could be of standardized design and adaptable for naval use. The ships could more easily become part of the navy in the event of an emergency. Furthermore, a Canadian coast guard could advantageously form the nucleus of an expanded service should the need arise in war time. The members of the marine, section of the R.C.M.P. were incorporated into the navy at the beginning of the war. They made a great contribution and many of them served with great distinction. When hostilities ceased, the R.C.M.P. marine section was again absorbed by that force.
There is another consideration. An amalgamated service would be the logical instrument for the discharge of Canada's responsibilities in such international undertakings as air-sea rescue, ocean meteorological stations or other commitments of like nature which do not fall clearly within the work of a single department. During the war the R.C.A.F. had the responsibility for air-sea rescue service, and this service was operated by the R.C.A.F., assisted by the R.C.N. Under the terms of one of the conventions or agreements arrived at at the intei-national civilian aviation conference held in Chicago in 1944, Canada undertook to provide such measure of assistance to aircraft in distress in its territory as it might find practicable. If we are to have a coast guard it might well be patterned on that of the United States. No other country has a similar service.
If anyone is interested in the activities of the United States coast guard I would refer him to the hearings before the subcommittee

of the committee on appropriations when it was dealing with the coast guard appropriation bill for 1947. These proceedings set out clearly the functions of the United States coast guard both in war and peace. In war time it became part of the military forces of the United States and was operated by the navy. Under a directive issued by President Truman in December last it was directed that on and after January 1, 1946, the coast guard would operate under the department of the treasury. In other words, in war time the United States coast guard is part of the military forces of that country; in peace time it assumes its ordinary peacetime functions, such as the maintenance of aids to navigation, sea rescue activities, the enforcement of navigational laws at sea and along the coast and other such things.
In conclusion I would ask the Minister of Fisheries to give this matter consideration at an early day and bring it to the attention of the government.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Chairman, once again the estimates of the Department of Fisheries are being brought up toward the close of the session. We maritimers all feel more or less like criminals taking up the time of the committee, but I ask hon. friends from agricultural ridings to continue to be patient. I am sure they will, because we have listened to them for many long weeks: we have heard all the wails of the agriculturist on the prairies, and sometimes listening to all their tales of hard luck it seems to me that Jonah must have been a C.C.F. farmer from Saskatchewan.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I am sure we are very much interested.


An hon. MEMBER:: You cannot take it.


John Horne Blackmore: We can take it all right.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it with a sense of humour.


John Horne Blackmore: Let it be given with a sense of humour.


John Lambert Gibson: I want to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for New Westminster on the thoughtful, masterly and scholarly address he gave yesterday. It has not been my privilege while in parliament to hear a finer speech on fisheries. The minister would be wise to take into careful consideration his comments and observations and the data he provided. This is an important subject and should be treated accordingly.

Supply-Fisheries
I should like to refer particularly to the situation in Hecate strait to which the hon. member referred. Those waters have always been Canadian waters, and I think it was just an oversight that they were allowed to slip out of our control and be considered international fishing grounds.
The fisheries on the Pacific coast suffered a severe blow by the retirement of Major Motherwell, the chief supervisor. However, I am glad to know that the department is sending out Mr. Whitmore, who has been the western director of fisheries, to take over his duties, at least temporarily. The fisheries on the Pacific coast will be in most capable hands. I was glad to hear the minister say yesterday that he had plans for bringing along young men in his department so that they would be available to take the place of officials who might be retiring. There is only one way in which you can keep the right men in government service, and that is to pay them adequate salaries so that they will be available when needed.
For a short time I should like to discuss an important and urgent question involving the fishing industry of British Columbia. I refer to the salmon run on the Fraser river. I know the minister has given this subject considerable thought and I realize it represents a knotty problem. There are a large number of seine boats in Comox-Albemi, and the owners of these boats are waiting anxiously for some decision to be made in this matter. In view of the present very low salmon catch this year, unless the seiners get some consideration from the minister, it looks like a hungry winter for them. Hon. members are familiar with the disputes that occur between various branches of the industry and between the various types of boats and gear. When the steam trawlers came along, the old sailing boats resented them very much. Ever since the war we have been able to dispose of every pound of fish that we have been able to catch, but I must warn the minister that the time is rapidly coming, and I know he appreciates this fact, when Canada will once again have to go into the markets of the world and meet keen competition. It is not going to be long before Siberian salmon is again on the market, and Japanese salmon and Norwegian fish will also be coming on to the markets of the world. There is only one way in which we shall be able to meet that competition, and that is by having the finest quality of fish products to offer on world markets. I can assure the minister that, as I think everybody is well aware, there will be no sentiment in regard to traditional markets
that we have been able to gain during the war. The buyers there will look at things from a strictly dollars-and-cents angle.
I would like to read a telegram that I have received with regard to the Fraser river fisheries. A great many members have received a copy of this telegram, but I should like to put it on the record so that the committee generally will be familiar with the situation out there. It is dated Vancouver, August 23, 1946, and reads:
Further to our former representations re seining area seventeen at mouth of Fraser river. Present situation is that seine catches in areas contiguous to Fraser, namely, Johnston straits and straits Juan de Fuca, have been extremely disappointing to date in spite of visible evidence of substantial bodies of salmon passing through these waters en route Fraser. This run due in American waters this coming week and, as informed you previously, American seine fleet over double that of last cycle year. Our only possibility attain our full share this catch is to have boundaries for seine fishing as recommended by this committee. This committee consisting of fully accredited representatives of gill netters, seiners _ and industry fully prepared to control seining in gulf area that fair distribution of catch to be made between gill netters and seiners.
Our joint idea this regard, roughly two-thirds to gill-netters, one-third to seiners. This committee with full authority to exercise such control, willing and anxious work with governmental authorities for purposes of proper protection and conservation.
Unless seining boundaries altered to permit proper seining in gulf this committee will disband and any eventuality in matter of dispute between types of gear, and any gluts and losses that might occur will be responsibility of fishery department and/or other authorities concerned. Extremely low present pack figures lowest in at least fifteen years indicate Canadian fishermen's earnings extremely poor to date and they feel unless above-mentioned boundaries revised our fishermen unable physically obtain their share of Fraser production as provided by international salmon treaty. Full significance must be given fact that in 1942 American effort ceased September first whereas this year they have no closure. Delay in obtaining decision is extremely harmful causing uncertainty and confusion. Every day that passes without decision means that necessary preparation for establishment and patrol of boundaries cannot be made, which will endanger proper control.
That is signed by Salmon Canners Operating Committee, which is the organization representing all the salmon canner companies in British Columbia, and by the Allied Workers Union, who are the bargaining agents for the fishermen, both seiners and gill netters, out there.
I am extremely sorry to have to disagree in this matter in some measure with the hon. member for New Westminster, who is particularly well informed on the salmon problems in British Columbia. He has been
Supply-Fisheries

an able and effective member of the international salmon fisheries commission, and has made a great contribution to the establishment and building up of the Fraser river salmon run. Naturally, of course, representing as I do Comox-Alberni, where there are mostly seine boat fishermen, I appreciate the fact that the member for Fraser Valley and the member for New Westminster must speak for the gill netters, who principally reside in their ridings, and with that I certainly have no quarrel. They have always been able very effectively to take care of both their fishermen and their fruit growers.
I have often heard the idea expressed, for some strange reason, that the seiners are the rich people and the gill netters the poor people. That probably is entirely opposite to the facts. The seiners are men who do not necessarily own the boat they are on; they are usualy working men, whereas most of the gill netters have an investment of from five to ten thousand dollars in their nets and seines. So if our socialist friends over there have any prejudice against capitalists, I would say that the seiners are less capitalist than the gill netters. The seiners out in British Columbia have tried to be very fair in this problem and have suggested that the regulations be made such that the gill netters get two fish to the seiners' one; that is, that the gill netters get 66 J per cent of the fish. The telegram I have read in itself indicates the desire of the seiners to be very fair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


John Lambert Gibson: Continuing from where I was when Father Time caught up with me at one o'clock, I believe the present difficulty arises over the Sloan commission's report made in 1939-40. At that time two problems were submitted to the commissioner for solution, one concerning the traps at Sooke, and the other with regard to allowing seining at the mouth of the Fraser river. It is interesting to observe from the figures what a small percentage of the Fraser river catch the seines have caught in the past, and despite the fact that the percentages are very low for fish taken by seine, the gill net fishermen feel that they have been allowed to take too many.
In 1933 seine boats took only 4-9 per cent of the catch; in 1934, 21 per cent; in 1935, 20 per cent; in 1936, they were not allowed to seine at all and consequently they got nothing;

in 1937, less than one per cent; in 1938, 12 per cent; and in 1939 they took 14-75 per cent. That, I submit, proves how little the gill netters have had to complain about in this regard.
In his report Commissioner Sloan found, so far as the traps were concerned, that they were not unduly destructive of the salmon run and did not take more than a reasonable share. He pointed out that they were caught so far from the Fraser river that the fish were of very fine quality there. These lease traps are owned by one compnay, and it seems strange that a short time later, when the report was made that the traps should be allowed to remain there, another company applied for adjacent trap sites and the government refused these on the very grounds that Commissioner Sloan found untenable. It appears to me the same may be said as far as seining is concerned. I think that his findings with regard to seining at the mouth of the Fraser river are equally untenable.
When the commission sat, matters were brought to a head in the discussion of the 1938 salmon run. In that year only 1,500,000 sockeye salmon were taken from the Fraser river. Of that quantity, only 214,000, or twelve per cent, were taken by seine boats; nevertheless it brought a protest from the gill netters. This run has since been built up greatly through the efforts of the international salmon fisheries commission, of which the hon. member for New Westminster is a member, but it has also been built up by the expenditure of public funds in Canada, to which we all contribute, as well as by the restrictions that have been placed both on gill netters and on the seiners, all of which has resulted in an increase in the run.
This year it is expected there will be
4,000,000 sockeye taken as Canada's share from the same run. The run has been built up to such an extent from the level of 1,500,000 in 1938 that this year we shall have, it is expected, 4,000,000, or an increase of approximately 3,000,000 dollars in value; and as far as I have been able to gather, the gill netters feel that they are entitled to all the increase, notwithstanding the fact that it has been made possible by the restrictions on both gill netters and seiners and by the expenditure of public funds in this country.
What I regret particularly this year is that j=very stump rancher and office boy, every worker in the lower mainland area, has heard of the great run of salmon coming this year and therefore has obtained a gill net. Anyone who has a rowboat has a gill net licence and is there to get in on the harvest, and I

Supply-Fisheries
say that the regular fishermen-I mean the regular seine fishermen-should be allowed to participate in this greatly increased national asset which we have this year. It will be one of the great problems to be solved, as the international fisheries commission realizes, and as the minister also knows, to see that Canada gets its fair share.
It has been decided this year that if
12.000.	000 fish come to the Fraser river the Americans should have 4,000,000, Canada
4.000.	000, and 4,000,000 should be allowed to go to the spawning ground for reseeding purposes. The Americans have no inhibitions about using seines or modern gear. They have the greatest seine fleet in their history waiting for these salmon. No one knows what part of the sea the salmon come from, but they suddenly show up on the Swiftsure banks between Canada and the United States. They come from the ocean through our waters and go down for about three weeks in United States territory where there are few restrictions as far as seining is concerned, so that the Americans have a great opportunity to take their share of them.
It will be our problem to make certain that if they get their 4,000,000 we shall get our
4.000.	000 also, and I know that the commissioners are concerned, as is the minister, that we should get a fair division of the salmon. When the fish leave United States waters they cross over to the Canadian side of the line and it is there that we hope to be able to seine some of these fish. The fish come to our waters and stay for about three weeks, playing around off the mouth of the Fraser river, gradually getting used to the taste of fresh water; but owing to tide and wind conditions they often drift back across the line, and there will certainly be a great fleet of American boats there waiting to trap the fish that happen to be foolish enough to go back to the United States.
I would point out that salmon playing off the mouth of the Fraser river for a period of three weeks are not eating during that time. It is one of the marked characteristics of these fish that they do not eat on the way to the spawning ground, and anything that does not eat for a period of three weeks certainly deteriorates in quality. I believe that Chief Justice Sloan was very remiss in his report in that he did not give us a definite recommendation as far as quality is concerned. I have been a fish buyer for twenty years and I know something about the quality of fish. I know that the moment fish get into brackish water they begin to deteriorate every day. For that reason I am sorry that Chief Justice Sloan did not see fit to make a definite recommendation 63260-350
in this regard. The only thing I can find in the report, as far as quality is concerned, is the following statement:
There is no appreciable difference for canning purposes between the quality of fish caught by either types of gear in area 17.
That is true. It does not matter whether you catch a fish with a seine or hit it on the head with a club; if it is in the same water the fish will be of the same quality. I am not complaining about that. It is the fact that while these fish are at their peak in quality we are not allowed to catch them because we are trying to protect the man who lives fifty miles up the Fraser river, and we are only allowing the fish to deteriorate in quality so that he may have an opportunity to catch them. Such a thing is not sensible. I do not think we should allow political, sentimental or any other reasons to stop us from getting quality in our fish, because it is so important to the maintenance of the export trade.
The member for New Westminster has advised me that there is a possibility this year that the salmon run may be late, and it may be disappointingly smaller than we have anticipated. If so, I am heartily in accord with the fisheries department and with the hon. gentleman in that we should take every step possible to see that we have adequate seeding on the spawning grounds. I am all for conservation, and as I have pointed out, this run has been built up with great difficulty. I trust therefore that we shall take every precaution to see that nothing happens to it. I am of the opinion, however, that if the run is small or late, or if there are imposed upon the fishermen restrictions which are necessary for the preservation of the run, those restrictions should be imposed impartially on both gill netters and seiners. From the telegram I have read the committee will have a general idea of the views of the industry. Both the fishermen and the canned salmon operators have made joint representation that steps be taken to make this area available for seine fishing.
I would point out to the minister that another colleague of his got into a little trouble through accepting some of the findings of Chief Justice Sloan; he said that Chief Justice Sloan's recommendations were just, fair and reasonable. I often think that he wishes he had never made that statement. The minister would do well to disregard this Sloan report. I know he does not like to do that. I appreciate the fact that when a minister steps into a portfolio he has to follow the recommendations made by so-called competent authority, but I think he would be well advised to throw away the Sloan report and start off on an entirely new basis. Chief Justice Sloan was

Supply-Fisheries

reporting on a run of 1,500,000 fish, and therefore was interested in seeing that these gill netters of the Fraser river had enough to eat for the coming winter. But that run has now been built up. It is now a run of five million; therefore the minister could very easily see to it that regulations are made along the lines of those recommended to him by the industry in general which will allow a fair division of the catch.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: I
should like to follow up the remarks already made by the other British Columbia members on the fisheries department's general estimates. Before doing so, however, like my other colleagues, I should like to congratulate most heartily the hon. member for New Westminster upon his thorough and searching analysis of our position as to fishing on the continental shelf, both on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. It is an. analysis which should be studied closely not only by the Minister of Fisheries but also by the minister of external affairs.
We have had a fine example of international cooperation on this continent. We are proud of our long undefended international boundary. Of all forms of international cooperation I think the cooperation between the Americans and the Canadians in the Pacific fisheries reaches a high which should be worthy of emulation by any other country in the world. There is no antagonism at all. We have pooled our resources; we have set up these international joint commissions to control both sockeye and halibut fishing. The Americans have spent a lot of money in Canada building up fisheries which will be used both by themselves and by Canadians. Certainly this is true on the Pacific coast of fish which spawn either in Canada or in the United States or in offshore waters. To us in British Columbia it seems a most unfortunate situation that the United States and Canada cooperate to conserve the fish, to encourage the propagation of fish, and then countries like Russia and Japan on the Pacific and Spain and Portugal on the Atlantic are allowed to come in and plunder them by ruthless fishing on the continental shelf. I suggest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he should study the speech of the hon. member for New Westminster, especially that part of it in which he suggests that since the United States and Mexico have proclaimed the continental shelf of United States and Mexico, American and Mexican territory, we should be considering the same thing in Canada.
I should like to say a word or two about the excellent work the fisheries department is

doing, and especially to commend the minister for his announced plan of increasing his staff by at least one hundred young fishery recruits. Excellent work has been done in British Columbia by his research staff. They have been exceptionally good in advising the fishermen and the industry in regard to the processing of fish and in the use of fish. They have not been perhaps quite as helpful in their biological studies. There is still too much about western fish that neither the fishermen nor the industry really understand. May I give one example? It is that of the new anchovy fishing, which is being done for the first time on the west coast this year. I am especially interested in anchovy fishing, because the two canneries which pack them are in my own riding. But where the anchovies come from and where they go is entirely unknown to the fisheries department and the fishermen themselves. Therefore in the process of expansion of his department I urge the minister to make a more generous contribution toward the expansion of the biological division of his research department.
I should now like to offer just one word of criticism of certain methods of the fisheries department. I am glad the Minister of Justice is in his place, because it involves him perhaps more than it does the Minister of Fisheries. During this session we have heard a great deal on the invasion of the rights of British subjects, particularly with regard to the espionage trials. I have been thinking that some of our west coast fishermen are treated much worse in so far as their rights are concerned in the matter of trials than were the people who appeared before the royal commission on espionsife. Let me explain what I mean by that. Up in the north end of my riding there is a very large fishing ground called Rivers inlet. In the area there are regulations which say, for example, that a fisherman must fish within certain boundaries. In areas where strong tides run or where there are high winds the fishermen on occasions may drift over the boundary. Quite often the fisheries department allege he has drifted over the boundary, and the fisheries inspector or guard who arrests that man does not take him before an ordinary magistrate or judge and charge him with an offence. He is brought before the fisheries supervisor who is put there by the fisheries department, and he is told that he can be tried right there or his gear will be confiscated and his licence removed until he can be tried in the fall before a regular magistrate. Just think of the position of a man who is three hundred miles away from the nearest magistrate. He is told that he can

Supply-Fisheries
plead guilty, and be fined $50 or $100 and that he can go back fishing the next morning, otherwise he must wait until the fall but in the meantime he cannot fish, although it is the height of the fishing season. In these circumstances you can well understand what the fisherman will do. He pleads guilty, even though innocent, because it is cheapest. The best example of that is the record of fisheries prosecutions in the Rivers inlet area. I doubt very much whether more than one or two have pleaded not guilty before the fisheries supervisors in the past two or three years. Fishermen would far rather plead guilty, pay the $100 fine and get back to fishing the next day, than wait till the fall to be tried in Vancouver or some other place, and in the interval be stopped from fishing. May I give an example of how it would affect prairie members if the same thing happened in their section of the country. If you grew a little grain just outside the boundary of your farm, the local policeman would come along and arrest you and would take you to the chief of police, not to a judge. The chief of police would say, "You can plead guilty now and pay a fine of $50 or $100; otherwise I will take away your harvesting equipment from you; I will not allow you to harvest your crop until all the other farmers have harvested theirs; and then often your crop is destroyed. You can appear before a magistrate in your community and have an ordinary trial." That is the condition which the fishermen have accepted up until now. The time has come when we should have a circulating magistrate removed from the fisheries department to administer proper justice. I submit it is not fair that these fishery supervisors should be conducting summary trials. The situation is not grave near Vancouver, because there are magistrates in that city, but in the north end of my own riding and in the riding of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, where some of the principal fisheries of British Columbia are located, that is the situation, and it is not good enough. When the minister comments later I should like him to touch on this subject of summary trials by fisheries supervisors.
Members from eastern Canada may have been a little puzzled to-day to see members from British Columbia disagreeing with each other. Generally we all present a united front, but to-day the hon. member for Comox-Alberni disagreed with the suggestions of the hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Fraser Valley with regard to gill netters. When the hon. member for Fraser Valley and the hon. member 63260-350J
for New Westminster speak a little later I am sure that they will offer rebuttal. The answer, of course, is that in the riding of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni the fishermen are chiefly seine fishermen; in the other areas they are almost entirely gill netters. To those who are not familiar with fishing may I say that there are just three principal methods of fishing for salmon on the west coast. There is the small boat which has a gill net perhaps a hundred yards long. The net is laid out from the boat and the salmon run into it and are caught by the gills. Obviously that fishing must be done at night, or, in the alternative, in muddy waters, because otherwise the salmon see the net and avoid it. A much better way of fishing is to find a school of salmon, lay a long net around the school, pull the bottom tight, forming a purse, and lift the salmon out. That is seining. Finally, the best way of catching salmon is undoubtedly the fish trap, where a large fixed trap is built out from the shore, and as the salmon come from the sea along the shore they go into the trap. Undoubtedly the trap provides the least employment in terms of men. The gill net provides the most employment, but we must think not so much in terms of what fishing will supply in terms of employment, but of which is most efficient in view of conditions five or ten years from now, when we shall have to compete on the world market with Russian and Japanese salmon, because the Russians will use traps, not gill nets.
As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has said, the Americans catch their half of the Fraser river salmon with seines. The situation is exactly as though, to refer to the prairie provinces, there were a law in Saskatchewan forbidding the use of combines to cut wheat, and requiring that all wheat be cut with a hand sickle and threshing be done by oxen, as in biblical times, in order to provide more work. That is all right if you have a closed economy, but if British Columbia is to compete again on open world markets, as we had to do in the years before the war, we must fish economically. I suggest that the time has come for the departmental officials to give leadership to the fishermen and point out that salmon fishing, which has been so wonderful during the war years in the way of returns, because we could sell every can of salmon we produced, is going to compete in the post-war years with the same Pacific salmon caught by Russia and Japan, and that these gill netters should start to do as all American gill netters did years ago, and turn their thoughts to seining Aside from that I do not propose to enter into the controversy
Supply-Fisheries

between the hon. member for Fraser Valley and the hon. member for New Westminster as to the relative values of gill netting and seining.
I should be glad if the minister would give in his reply some indication that fishermen fishing in the rivers off the west coast of Vancouver island should have the right to plead not guilty to an infraction of fisheries regulations and be tried by their magistrates without their gear being impounded and their licences removed until they are found guilty or not guilty.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I am in a rather embarrassing position. To-day I have to follow and disagree with two of my colleagues from British Columbia who happen to be my closest personal friends. I have one advantage they do not have-or maybe it is a disadvantage. For reasons known only to myself they had to make good speeches today. I do not have to.


James Sinclair: You could not.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member is unkind to me; he says I could not, but I will not show him up by making one of my usual good speeches, only a normal one, which will still be better than his. When he told us about the anchovies, I wondered if any hon. member had ever seen an anchovy. It is a baby sardine, and a baby sardine, as I understand it, is a baby salmon. Incidentally, for the benefit of some of my hon. friends I am not an expert on fisheries. I have had more interesting things to do than to watch the love life of anchovies; I do not know whether they have love nests or not. But I have had a few samples of the finest salmon in the world sent to me from British Columbia. Whether I was being lobbied or not I do not know. By the way, speaking to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, I have some chickens on my farm for which I would welcome some wheat from Saskatchewan. So far the maritimes have not sent me any tins of lobsters; I am still waiting, and I should be glad to receive them.
The hon. member for New Westminster is the greatest authority in this House of Commons on fish, and he will speak in detail on my behalf, as to why the hon. member for New AVestminster and the hon. member for Fraser Valley are opposing the use of the seine in favour of the gill net.


James Sinclair: Would you know yourself?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I did not interrupt the hon. member for Vancouver North, because I wanted to give him every chance in the world to try to make a good speech. And as the hon. member for Temiscouata is not here to advise me to-day, I hope the hon. member for Vancouver North will help me by not interrupting. I am going to give some of the reasons why I am opposed to the use of seines and am in favour of gill nets.
One of the most practical reasons is something which members of all parties will appreciate, in spite of the fact that they may deny it: we are all interested in votes. We are accused of talking politics. All right; frankly I am talking politics.


Mr. BENTLEY:: Do you use gill nets for that?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I would use gill nets or anything else. One reason I received one hundred per cent of the fishermen's votes in my riding is that I have been fighting for the fishermen, not for the canners. And one reason I am in favour of gill netting is that we have more employment through gill netting. Ninety-nine per cent of the seine boats are owned by the big canning interests. One hundred per cent of the gill nets are owned by individual fishermen. The average gill net boat with net costs SI,500 to S2,000. I do not know what a seine net boat costs, but is is a much larger amount of money. To the best of my ability I am attempting to support the gill netters of my riding, and I have many hundreds resident there, although they do not necessarily fish there all the time. One hundred per cent own nets, and ninety per cent are veterans of this or the last war. We recognized as a government that we should encourage these men; under the Veterans Land Act we enable them to borrow the capital needed to go into the business. Therefore why we should by any manner of means detract from their opportunity to earn a living I cannot understand.
There is a very appropriate name for Vancouver North, given to a place which happens to be situated in my riding. The life or death of the salmon business on the whole Pacific coast depends on a district which, as I have said, has a name far more appropriate to some point in Vancouver North or Comox-Alberni: It is "Hell's Gate." But for the improvements [DOT]which the international commission of which the hon. member for New AVestminster is a member put in at this gate-

Supply-Fisheries
way, you would have no salmon fisheries in British Columbia or on the Pacific coast. Hell's Gate happens to be situated in my riding.
The salmon industry works with the seiners. Admittedly if you put in a seiner you take all the fish out, whether edible fish or not; that net gathers in all the fish which happen to be in that particular area. As I understand it, although I am ready to be corrected, the only net which allows for selective fishing is the gill net. That is the second reason I am particularly interested in it. I would point out to hon. members, and again I am speaking from memory, that prior to 1913, I think it was, we had the slide at Hell's Gate caused by the Canadian National, and had it not been removed, the revenue to the people of Canada from the salmon industry of British Columbia would have been much less than $41,000,000. We went to all this trouble and expense internationally to remove the slide in order that the fish might come to their little love nests in Adam river and elsewhere. Why should we now, by any legislative act, curb the operations of the gill netters? I will leave it to the hon. member for New Westminster to enlarge on this matter on my behalf, as he is more familiar with it. After all, what we are interested in is to obtain enough fish for our food and a fair share of the external market on an international basis with the United States, without worrying about the seiners.
I have no particular quarrel with the canning industry. But these gill netters, according to the figures given us by the international fisheries commission, are quite capable of looking after the present cycle of fishing. I want to be fair about it. One of the unions in my own riding has wired and written me asking me to change my stand. Again I am like the hon. member for Cape Breton South, the only difference being that he has never given that advice to his union. They will have to show a much stronger reason than they have shown thus far before I will make any change in my opinion.
So far as the Fraser Valley riding is concerned, we are definitely and unalterably opposed to the use of seine fishing at the mouth of the Fraser river, and we are definitely opposed to any alteration in the report of the Sloan commission. The Sloan commission was credited with making the finest report ever brought in with respect to fisheries on the Pacific coast. The author of that report was also asked to make one with respect to reforestation, and he was thought of so highly that he was asked to advise with respect to labour legislation in western Canada. In the Fraser
river valley I can see no reason as yet why his recommendation should be altered in any shape or form.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that consideration of a subject, as important as this has been left until the tail end of the session. I must say in fairness, however, that it is not the fault of the Minister of Fisheries, because for at least the past two weeks he has been prepared to bring his estimates before the house, although they were reached only yesterday.
First of all, before asking the minister one or two questions I have in mind, I should like to reply briefly to some of the statements made by the hon. members for Comox-Alberni and Vancouver North. To-day history repeats itself in the House of Commons. I am reminded of the old seine and gill net fight which took place in the house when I came in the early thirties. I need not repeat the facts respecting the three types of fishing mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver North. However, the seine boats which are spoken of to-day were not allowed in those areas from the days of confederation until about 1933. The argument put forward by the seine boats in those days was that the variety of fish caught-not the sockeye salmon, but a variety of fish known as the pink salmon-had better value if they were caught out in the open water where the American seiners were fishing, or in close proximity thereto. So in the year 1933, for one variety of salmon only-not for the sockeye but for the pink salmon-those seine fishing boats were allowed into the gulf of Georgia. I predicted, and it has come true, that if the seine boats were ever allowed to go into those areas in the gulf of Georgia they would not stop at fishing for pinks, but they would want to get sockeye and all other varieties as well.
The fight was carried on here in the House of Commons year after year. Each year when the estimates came up we battled it out, until the matter was placed before the fisheries committee. There the battle was continued. Entering also into the picture in those days was the matter of traps. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver North, there are three types of fishing-trap fishing, seine fishing and gill netting. If you want to get the best quality of fish and to get it in the cheapest way, you do it by traps. But everyone who is looking toward the giving of employment will, for more than one reason,, be in favour of allowing fishermen to catch their fish by gill nets.
In answer to one of the arguments put forward to-day, even if one catches fish with
Supply-Fisheries

seines he is not cheapening the cost of the fish, because all fish are paid for at the same price by the cannery men, whether they be caught by traps, by seines, or by gill nets. So the question of price does not enter into it at all.
We fought all this out in the fisheries committee, with the result that it was decided to place the entire matter in the hands of a commission, and Mr. Chief Justice Sloan was given the job of looking into it. Public meetings were held in three of the important towns or cities including New Westminster, to which all interested parties were invited. There, they had the opportunity to air their views fully. The commissioner, following the investigation, then placed his recommendation before the government in 1940, a copy of which I have in my hand. He recommended that the seines be confined to a small area in the gulf only. Now we come to 1942; and under the excuse that more food was required for Great Britain and other countries, seines were allowed into a larger part of the area. This is now the fourth year since 1942, the year of the big run -it takes place every four years-and of course the seines want to get in there again. When the hon. member for Comox-Alberni says that the seine fishermen were asking for something that was fair, I must conclude that he has not read the correspondence which has come to the department, because not only are they asking that the area be allowed to an extent similar to 1942, but they are asking that they get right back to the position in 1933, and take the whole thing right up to the mouth of the Fraser river.
What did they do when they were in the mouth of the Fraser in 1933? They cut the fishermen's nets. Gill net fishermen could not fish in there at all because of the number of seines in the area. Then the matter of quality arises. The commissioner invited cannery men to give evidence in this particular. They did not try to prove nor could they prove that fish caught with one type of gear were better than those caught with another type. As a matter of fact the fish from the two or three types are usually dumped on the wharf at one time, and one can not distinguish whether fish had been caught by gill nets or by seines.
As to the point made about fish with no food inside them being of better quality, I believe there may be some validity in the argument, as it has been put forward by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, in regard to pink salmon. Pink salmon may deteriorate as they go farther up the river. But I can say now without fear of successful contradiction that the sockeye salmon that is caught right up in the Fraser river, and as far up as

the constituency represented by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, produces the finest quality of canned salmon that can be found anywhere. That has not been disproved. As a matter of fact it has been found that the salmon are of better quality when there is no food or feed in them. I am sorry we have not more time to go into this matter at greater length, but owing to the nearness of the end of the session one does not have an opportunity to give as much time to the subject as its importance demands. It is a question, however, of the greatest good to the greatest number.
We are accused of fighting for the individual fisherman. Let me point out that seine boats have been proven to be large, mobile trap nets. Nothing escapes, once the circle goes around the fish. Immature fish and all other kinds are caught within the seine net. We claim that not only does the seine net catch immature fish, but that it interferes with schools of fish by breaking them up, and delays their progress up to the spawning beds. That is our contention. So it is not a matter of our fighting politically, although even if we were fighting politically I cannot see any disgrace in fighting for the people one represents. Surely one need not apologize for that. I approach the matter, however, on broader grounds-because there are fishermen in my riding who operate or work on seine boats; but a greater number of them operate and own their boats and gill nets.
I do not know whether I have answered fully the statement made this afternoon, but I draw the minister's attention to the fact that there should be a better reason for opening area 17 this year than was given in 1942. The minister has the report of the royal commission which investigated the matter fully, and I say the conditions have not changed since that time.
I shall pass on to one or two other matters which I have in mind. Have any steps been taken by the minister's department to popularize the consumption of fish? It is a remarkable fact that during the war the consumption of fish dropped considerably in Canada. I have the authentic figures given by one of the departments in Ottawa.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I wonder if the hon. member would take that up under item 79.


Thomas Reid: Very well, I shall do so. In pre-war years our per capita consumption of fish amounted to 11-9 pounds. By 1944 the per capita consumption had dropped to 9-8 pounds.


An hon. MEMBER:: ' Is that per year?

Supply-Fish eries


Thomas Reid: Yes, that is the per capita
consumption. It is less than any other country.


Angus MacInnis: Would the difficulty in
getting canned salmon in Canada during the war years have anything to do with that?


Thomas Reid: I am not sure. The same
reason would have to be given in relation to consumption in the United States, because it dropped there as well, and the canned salmon must have interfered with their consumption.


Mr. WARREN:: Do those figures take into account the very fine fish we get from Mink lake and other lakes in North Renfrew?


Thomas Reid: One always likes to hear a
member get in a word for his riding. I have no doubt that wonderful fish are caught in that district, but they are caught by sportsmen, and the figures here apply to consumption from commercial sales. I simply want to draw to the attention of the minister what other countries are doing with regard to the sale of fish. For instance, in Newfoundland they are starting an air service to deliver fish so that it will reach the public as fresh as possible. The same thing is being done in Southern Ireland, where they intend to fly fish and fish products right across to England so that the public may obtain these in as fresh a condition as possible. This is bound to create a greater market for their fish. Perhaps the minister when he speaks will tell us what steps are being taken in that direction.
I should like to deal with a matter mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver East, the depletion of our fish. In 1944 the department received a brief presented on behalf of twenty companies and the fishermen's union, which drew attention to the fact that the fish in almost every fishing district in British Columbia were becoming depleted and production was gradually going down. I have said to many returned men, and I say it now to the minister, that it would be unfair to encourage many more men to enter the fishing industry on the Pacific coast. At the present time that industry has about all it can stand profitably. I believe there are now something like 4,000 gill net boats down in the Fraser river waiting for the great Adams river run of salmon which is now heading through the straits to the spawning beds in the upper reaches of the Fraser river. It is not entirely correct to tell ex-service men that there is a great future for them in fishing. Only so much fish is available in each year and the greater the number of the men that enter the industry, the less there will be for those already in it.
I should like to draw the attention of the minister to something which was mentioned yesterday. Our share of the world production of fish is very small indeed. We have done practically nothing to develop fishing away out in the open waters. I notice that the United States has taken steps to encourage new types of fishing and have besides discovered various new kinds of fisheries off the shores of Washington and Oregon, and also off Alaska. They have discovered sardines, herring and other types of fish, and are taking steps to encourage their fishermen to leave the inside fisheries and go out into the open waters. If we are to encourage men to enter the fishing industry, something more will have to be done, and I am suggesting that they be assisted to go out into the open waters on the Pacific ocean and catch varieties of fish available there rather than to keep close inshore and thus cut down the livelihood of those already in the industry.
Exports of fish are down. We did export a considerable amount during the war, but exports have fallen off over a number of years. It may interest the committee to know that in 1879 there were more men employed on the fishing boats on both coasts than there are at the present time. It may be true that they are catching more fish by better and improved methods, but the fact remains that if we are looking at this matter from the employment point of view, our fisheries will have to be developed with a much wider outlook than that which has prevailed during the past fifteen or sixteen years.
When the minister speaks I should like him to deal with this matter and to tell us also what steps are being taken to make fish more readily available to the public. Besides the need for new blood in the department in the way of fisheries experts, we need a more vigorous policy. I have here a calendar put out by the Health League of Canada. The picture here shows milk, meat, bread, eggs, cheese, beef, carrots and potatoes, but not one picture of fish.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: What is the Health League
of Canada?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is sponsored by the dominion government.


Thomas Reid: All I know is that this is printed in Toronto, so you can judge for yourself.
Mr. CRUICIvSHANK: Is there any soap on that calendar?


Thomas Reid: No, there is not. There is a need for an awakening on the part of the officials of the department if we are to sell
Supply-Fisheries

more fish to our people. We shall have to see that the fish is made available in a fresher state. There is more protein value in fish than there is in any product produced on the land, and I shall have a little more to say about that when we reach the item.
Another matter: What is the department doing about the production of fish flour? South Africa is producing fish flour, and it has been found that the addition of this flour in the manufacture of bread makes a more nutritious product. I am bringing these matters to the attention of the minister so he can make a note of them and see that steps are taken during the recess to carry on such investigation as may be necessary to have them implemented.


Mr. BRYCE:: Mr. Chairman, I expected that this debate would be finished some considerable time ago, and as I had to attend a committee meeting I sent my questions in written form to the minister in order to save time. However, having listened to hon. members from British Columbia and the Atlantic coast I feel that I must rise to congratulate them upon the wonderful story they have told. It has been a great education for me. I have never visited British Columbia, but I am hopeful of doing so soon. I have heard about salmon, I have heard about lobsters, I have heard about sardines, and it has all been new to me. If the fisheries of Manitoba were not under provincial jurisdiction I would like to tell the committee how wonderful the Winnipeg goldeye, the Winnipeg white. fish and the Winnipeg pickerel are.
I concur in a great deal of what hon. members have said regarding the fishing industry as a whole. The member for Charlotte talked about the price of fish, and that is what the fishermen are really concerned about-the price. I hope that the minister will see that the fish support board does a real job. I do not know whether he has a fisherman on the board; if not, I think he should have, because the fishermen have a real interest in the work of the board. We had an instance of the value of that when we saw various hon. gentlemen getting up in this house and talking about the fishing industry which they really knew something about. We should have men like that on the board, and then I think the fishermen would get better justice done to them than they have ever had before. If the price can be maintained in wartime it can be maintained in peace. The surplus fish should become our necessary reserves in cold-storage plants. It will perhaps be a new way of doing business,

but if it is a good way, the government could provide the cold storage and other facilities required.
I congratulate the minister upon bringing new blood into his department. I think it will work for the benefit of the fishing industry in general. I shall not take any more time. I have given the minister my questions; I know he will answer them as he has done in the past, and that is quite satisfactory to me.


Thomas John Bentley: I have listened with
interest to the speeches made by hon. members on the fishing industry. Sometimes hon. members of this house must have felt a bit bored when members from the prairies pursued their agricultural objectives, but I want to assure these gentlemen that we have been profoundly interested in the problems of the fishing industry, and I should like to congratulate them upon the way in which they have presented them. I know that my constituents will feel equally interested with me if I can explain from the Hansard report of my hon. friend's speeches what they have tried to tell us. We would not offer any solution, because obviously there is disagreement among hon. gentlemen who have spoken, and probably honest disagreement. But I can assure them that so far as our people on the prairies are concerned, anything they can do to help the fishermen of British Columbia and the maritimes will be done without question. We appreciate what they have told us.
Will the minister be good enough when making his statement to tell us whether .items 78, 79 and 90 will be applicable to the provinces and to our very small fishing industry in Saskatchewan?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am not going to make a speech on the fishing industry, because we have no commercial fishing in my riding. It is a paradise for those who want fishing for sport. But in my riding there are firms which supply the fishermen, and therefore I am very much interested in commercial fishing. I understand that during the last year our foreign markets for fish have dwindled. I would like the minister to explain why, if he can give us the reason. Perhaps the minister would also tell us whether his department or the Department of Trade and Commerce is out after new markets for our commercial fish, and why it is that we have lost these markets. Is it on account of price, or on account of quality? Is it because of poor inspection on the part of the department here?

Supply-Fisheries
I should also like to know what quantity of British Columbia salmon is to be exported this year, both frozen and canned, and what quantity will there be for home consumption. During the war years the Canadian housewife has not seen a can of salmon, although we are supposed to have had some 200,000 cases on the domestic market last year.
The member for New Westminster mentioned the drop in the domestic consumption of fish during the past few years. The riding of Peterborough, which I represent, during the last few years has received fish from the Atlantic and the Pacific, but mostly from the Atlantic, and it has been of extremely poor quality. That is the reason why in my opinion the consumption in Canada has dropped. The best quality has been exported and the poor quality kept at home. I have heard not one but a number of housewives say in the fish stores: Why can we not get some decent fish?


Mr. ISNOR:: What kind of fish is the hon. gentleman talking about?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Salmon.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Canned?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Any salmon, frozen or
fresh.


An hon. MEMBER:: From Gaspe or British Columbia?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We seldom get British Columbia salmon.. The hon. member for New Westminster brought out another aspect of the matter, namely, the preparing of fish. I think that the department should put out a really attractive folder, not a halfhearted one, but one that will really show the housewife in how many ways British Columbia salmon, for instance, can be attractively cooked and served.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You can eat British Columbia salmon raw and it is still good.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have eaten raw fish caught off the island of Hawaii, sliced thinly by the natives in their little boats and put between two slices of bread. I was nearly starving and I ate it, but I have never tried British Columbia salmon that way. I would emphasize the necessity of getting out, not a book, but an attractive folder showing how to cook different kinds of fish and then distributing it among the fish stores, particularly in central Canada, where it would be made available to the housewives, thus letting them know in how many attractive ways fish can be cooked and served.


John Horne Blackmore: I desire to express my appreciation to the members from British Columbia and the maritimes for the able way in which they have presented their opinions. The only one regret I have is that they have not elaborated on their problems because we have reached so late a stage in the session. Next year they should make up their minds to present their case one hundred per cent, no matter how late the estimates may be brought in. They have a case, and a very important one, and it ought to be presented in a thorough and effective manner. So far as I am concerned they have a standing invitation and a welcome to take all the time they want to air their problem so that we can come to an understanding of the various aspects of this important fishing industry in Canada.
In a country as large as ours, with such varied interests, each area is apt to forget the importance of the other areas which constitute the rest of Canada. We cannot hear too much about the facts pertaining to the industries of the country. This country either stands or falls as a unit. I have always rejoiced that there was at least one member in the house from the two central provinces who appreciated the necessity of seeing to it that all Canada was prosperous. I refer to the member for Davenport. How many times has he not stood up in the house and told us that you cannot have a prosperous industrial Canada unless you have a prosperous rural Canada? And I am sure you cannot have a prosperous industrial or rural Canada unless you have a prosperous maritime Canada. We stand or fall as a unit. Our interests are integrated; they form a closely woven pattern.
The questions of price and of markets are troubling fishermen just as they are troubling the producers of wheat'and other agricultural and primary products. I am not minimizing the importance or the difficulty of the problem involved, but somehow in this country we must devise ways and means of guaranteeing a market so that the people who produce will know that they will always have that market, and of guaranteeing a minimum price so that they will know that they will have a price at least above a given floor. I see no way in which this can be done except by dominion government subsidies.
The hon. member for Charlotte was, I believe, on the right track last night when he submitted that there must be a floor under the product. There is, I repeat, only one way in which that can be done, and that is by dominion government subsidies. We must face the necessity of providing such subsidies, just as in the west we expect a subsidy under the price of wheat, and we shall expect one under
Supply-Fisheries

the price of meats and other primary products. It will involve a good many details and technical studies of monetary affairs and all that, which we do not wish to go into at the present time.
There is another matter which is quite important, and that is the question of seeing to it that the man who does the work gets the pay for doing that work. Unquestionably the man. who is entitled to the major portion of the income from fishing is the man who goes into the water and catches the fish. Measures must be taken to see to it that that man gets the major portion of the income from fishing. Such has not been the case up to the present time by any means. The necessity for it was well brought out by the member for Charlotte and other members in their speeches. What public or social mechanism must be established in order to give the guarantee to which I have referred is a matter for grave consideration by the members of this house, and particularly by members who come from the areas affected. If they will devise what they consider to be an effective mechanism, and then come to the house and speak boldly and straightforwardly and tell us what they think has to be done, and how it must be done, they will find that they have earnest listeners at least in my group, and I am sure in the group to my right, who are deeply interested in such matters.
It may be necessary for the fishermen in the maritimes to organize themselves into a pool, probably a great cooperative producing organization, a great cooperative processing organization, a great cooperative marketing organization. It was facing problems such as the maritime fishermen face that caused the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan to build the great pools like the Alberta wheat pool and the Saskatchewan grain growers organization. It may be necessary for the people in the maritimes to organize a pool the object of which would be to purchase the product and process and market it where necessary. They may require a good deal of government assistance to that end, and a good deal of leadership to attain the objects that must be reached. I have often been impressed by the way the British Columbia fruit growers have gone about their problem. The member for Kootenay West has told us several things about what they did. They almost remade the situation for the fruit producer in British Columbia by attacking their problems cooperatively. They grade and market and control the industry cooperatively. The same may be necessary for the fishing industry.

I will say no more at the present time, but I assure members representing the maritime constituencies that when they present the problems of their constituencies they are not speaking to deaf ears or inattentive minds.


Mrs. STRUM:: I am not going to take up more than a few minutes. I am merely going to tell you why housewives are not buying more fish. It does not matter how good your cook book is, if you smell your fish when you begin to unwrap it you will not like it, and I think this particular phase, the consumption of fish, is going to narrow down to distribution. I am sure that people on the prairies love British Columbia salmon, and when we go to British Columbia we haunt your sea food places. We have feeds of oysters, crab and fresh cod fillets, and I am equally sure that if we went to the maritimes we would do the same thing; we would want to get our fill of the excellent sea foods that abound in those waters. But there are thousands upon thousands of people who live far from the source of these sea foods, and our greatest difficulty has been in. getting sea food that is really attractive. We could depend on canned salmon and canned sardines, because the time lapse between the moment when the fish come out of of the sea and the moment it went into the cans was controlled. But the time lapse between the moment the fish goes into the refrigerator car, or whatever it is they use to ship the fish in, and the journey over the prairies to the local butcher shop, seems to be a sort of indefinite quantity. I think the quick freezing method is something that should be explored, and research should be carried on in the interests of the Canadian family. We can go to almost any store and buy fresh frozen peas, blueberries, strawberries or corn on the cob and take them home and have the very finest flavour, colour and texture preserved in that way. I think that quick freezing applied to sea foods would preserve the freshness as nothing else would, and I would urge the minister to try to do something about the handling of sea foods for people remote from the coast. In our country we confine our fish season to winter because then we get fresh frozen fish. It is the only thing we cam trust. Fish can be like the curate's egg-good in spots. You only need one feed of that sort of egg or that sort of fish, and you do not want to see it again in months. One batch of not-so-fresh fish can ruin your appetite for that commodity. We want your fish. We like it and we have far too little of it. We would

Supply-Fisheries
buy it if we could buy it in such a condition that we could be sure when we served it our families would like it.
I wish to assure hon. members that we are also interested in the incomes of the fishermen. I have been fascinated by the story of fishing. We are deeply indebted to hon. members who have given us so much information on this matter yesterday and to-day. I wish to assure them that we want good homes in the east and in the west; we want good family incomes for fishermen. We do not want poverty-stricken fishing villages any more than we want poverty-stricken prairie villages. But I shall not attempt to tell hon. members how that should be accomplished. From the point of view of the housewife we would buy fish if we could really enjoy the fish that we buy. Until the quality, the method of handling and transportation are improved and treated differently, we shall not promise to buy fish that we can smell.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I had hoped that it would not be necessary for me to make any statement on the first general item of the estimates. Having listened to the general remarks of the various members for a period of about four and a half hours, I have a feeling that it would be difficult for me to reply to all the questions and suggestions which have been made. However, there will be another opportunity when certain individual items come up, and I can make some remarks on those items. In the meantime I seem to have been pressed to make a few remarks on this occasion, and I do not wish to disappoint hon. members by not doing so. At the same time I have a feeling, as I said before in committee, that one does not wish to make a speech with the result of blocking his own estimates. I am perfectly frank about that.
First of all I should like to congratulate most sincerely and most heartily the speakers whom we have heard during consideration of these estimates. I would say without hesitation that two of the hon. members who dealt with international problems and the problem of the continental shelf, the hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, one from the west and the other from the east, excelled themselves. The speeches which they delivered on an intricate and ticklish subject were most interesting and instructive. I listened to other speeches with a great deal of interest. They offered criticism of a constructive nature, and this, I assure hon. members, I do appreciate. In a way I am pleased that we should have had so much interest taken this year in the estimates of
the Department of Fisheries, even though they have been presented at such a late date. For many weeks I have been most anxious to get these estimates before the committee, and even at this time, considering other estimates which have to follow, those of the Department of Fisheries have not been placed anywhere near the last position.
May I come back to the questions raised by the hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. These are really international questions, and no doubt will be dealt with when the estimates of the Department of External Affairs are before the house. The question of the continental shelf is a most interesting and ticklish one, and one which will require a great deal of study. I cannot do more than assure hon. members that the matter is receiving not only the study of my department but also the study of the Department of External Affairs, which has been consulting my department in this matter. However, if any announcement is to be made or should be made concerning any policy of the kind, it would be, as hon. members know, a matter of high government policy and the announcement would eventually be made by whoever is presiding over the Department of External Affairs. I therefore tell my hon. friends that I cannot say very much about the question of the continental shelf.
I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Charlotte. Several constructive suggestions were made by him. As to the work of the fisheries research board and the question of lobster hatcheries, I will deal with that on one of the individual items. With regard to the question of floor prices for fish, I would advise the hon. member that on our statute book we have the Fisheries Prices Support Act, passed in 1944, which sets aside $25 million for that purpose. However, as yet the actual effective section of the act, namely section 9, has not been proclaimed by the government. This is a matter which is receiving the consideration of myself and of the department. I can frankly say that the problem is not an easy one to solve. I have exactly the same feeling as he has, that every effort must be made by this department to give the same protection to those engaged in the fishing industry as is given to those who are engaged in agriculture.
I should like to refer for a moment or two to area 17 on the west coast, concerning which some comments were made by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi. After listening to the remarks made by him and by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, the hon. member for Vancouver North and the hon. member for New Westminster, I am sure hon. members will
Supply-Fisheries

realize what a difficult position I am in at this time. It is not easy to be in a disagreement or in a quarrel with my friends from British Columbia, even when they are all against me, but when you have one on one side of you and another on the other side, and they are against each other and you are in the middle, it is a very unpleasant situation. I should like to point out to them that the matter is receiving careful consideration by the department. Mr. A. J. Whitmore, the director of western fisheries, who knows as much as anybody knows about fisheries in British Columbia is, I believe, on the scene. He went west last week. He is keeping me posted and advised regarding the matter.
As has been pointed out by the hon. member for New Westminster, some years ago a royal commission was appointed and a careful investigation was made by Chief Justice Sloan. He made certain recommendations. Some members of the committee wish me to stand by the recommendations contained in the Sloan report; others wish me to go against or change those recommendations. In assuming an office such as this, a position which I have heldi for only a year, it is not easy for a new minister to make up his mind to go against the recommendation of a royal commission appointed by the government of Canada. But it is my duty and my responsibility as Minister of Fisheries to see that this year Canada gets her fair share of the salmon.
The hon. member for Peterborough West asked a monent or two ago about the quantity of canned salmon which would be available for domestic consumption this year. Some weeks ago I made a statement in the house that some 500,000 cases would be available for domestic consumption. At that time I pointed out that it would be some months before this canned salmon actually got on the shelves in the grocery stores across Canada, because then fishing in British Columbia had just begun, and it is of course still being carried on. I might add that 500,000 cases is approximately the equivalent of what was the average annual consumption of British Columbia salmon in Canada before the war years. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Before the minister leaves that, will he refer to the question of foreign trade?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I think the hon. member realizes that the question of foreign trade comes within the jurisdiction of the Department of Trade and Commerce. So far as the government of Canada is concerned the buying and selling of fish to foreign countries would have to be done through the Canadian

Commercial Corporation which has recently been set up. The Department of Fisheries does not actually engage in foreign trade; it merely gives advice to the Department of Trade and Commerce when we are asked for it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, but the minister's
department would know why we are not holding these foreign markets.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: For a period of three years or more we have had, under international agreement, the combined food board, and under the jurisdiction of that board the salt fish was allocated and later canned fish, to different countries. We got our fair share of the allocation in exactly the same manner as the other countries received their fair share of the allocation. It is purely a matter of rationing to the requirement countries of the world the fish that is available.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But we have definitely lost the trade.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: No, I would not admit
that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Well, have not two European countries taken our fish markets away from us?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: No. I would advise my
hon. friend that they have been out of production.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is not the way I
heard it.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Well, I am sure my hon. friend will admit that they were out of production as far as competition with us during the war years was concerned.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I understand that at the
present time Great Britain is taking a lot of our foreign market for fish.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: The Department of Fisheries has no information to that effect.
Coming to the remarks made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, I would like to compliment her. I was pleased to find that the only lady member of the house is taking such an interest in the Department of Fisheries. She approaches the matter from an entirely different point of view, that of the housewife, which is probably the most important way of approaching it. She made some reference to quick freezing. I would advise her that this matter has been under constant study for some years by officials of the fisheries research board of Canada; it has been one of their major investigations, and as a matter

Supply-Fisheries
of fact it was through our fisheries research board that the overhead bunker car was developed for the transportation of frozen fish. I do not believe that as yet many of these cars are available to either railway, but more of them will be added this year. They have proved themselves more than satisfactory, and I take considerable pride in stating that the development of the overhead bunker cars is one of the accomplishments of the fisheries research board.
As I said at the outset, I do not wish to speak too long, because I know that questions will be brought up on other items of these estimates. If in these few brief remarks I have not dealt with all the questions which have been referred to by hon. members, I assure them that they may bring them up again on individual items and I shall endeavour to reply to them at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
77. Fisheries inspection, including fishery, officers and guardians, fisheries patroi and protection services, $1,518,150.
Mr. WINTERS:: There are a few questions I should like to ask to emphasize certain specific points not raised in connection with the general item, and also to get the department's attitude toward some of these points. I think the minister can answer them briefly. The minister just now gave the government's point of view regarding the control of the continental shelf, and I fully appreciate that it will take some time to work the problem >
out. My first question is this. Pending some arrangements with the countries concerned, what patrol facilities does the department visualize to protect our fishermen?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: This question of patrolling the international waters is in my opinion essentially a police problem. In dealing with this problem it will be necessary-and I can assure the hon. member we are already doing it-if we find that Canadian fishermen are actually being driven off or are having their gear destroyed, that a scheme be worked out between the Department of Fisheries, the Department of External Affairs, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Royal Canadian Air Force. In other words, that is the attitude and the position we are taking at the present time; we are endeavouring to work out some scheme which will be satisfactory to us so that our fishermen shall receive proper protection.


Robert Henry Winters: In view of the fact that it seems to be common knowledge locally in Nova Scotia and in some of the newspapers across the country what nations are involved
in fishing on these banks, is the minister prepared to state officially what nations are concerned?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: The nations which have had vessels fishing on the Quero and adjacent banks, to our knowledge, are the United States, Canada, Newfoundland, Spain, Portugal and France.


Robert Henry Winters: Having that knowledge, I would ask the minister if the governments of any of these foreign countries have been approached by any Canadian department, officially or unofficially?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: This is really a matter for external affairs, but I happen to know that none of the nations I have named have been approached as far as the fishing on Quero banks is concerned. As I have said before in this house, we have as yet received no definite statement from any individual fisherman which clearly identifies either the trawler or the nationality of any European or other foreign trawlers which have been fishing on these banks.


Robert Henry Winters: I should like to ask the minister about the origin of the complaints. Were the first complaints received from the fishermen's union, or from the fishing skippers themselves?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: The first complaints were received from the fishermen's union, and if I remember correctly, the date was May 21.


Robert Henry Winters: Have all skippers with whom the government has come in contact experienced interference from foreign trawlers?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: No, definitely not.


Robert Henry Winters: Have there been complaints from owners and operators other than skippers?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: There have been no complaints from owners who have not also been skippers. In other words there have been no complaints from owners other than skippers.


Robert Henry Winters: We have referred to
affidavits submitted by these skippers. Would the minister be good enough to read to the committee a typical affidavit submitted by a fishing skipper? I suggest those submitted by Captain Leo Corkum of the schooner Irene Mary.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Captain Leo Corkum supplied the department originally with one affidavit dealing with three different instances. Subsequently we received other affidavits
Supply-Fisheries

from him. I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the committee, but if hon. members wish it I shall place part of these affidavits on record. These affidavits describe incidents on April 15, April 23 and May 25. The one respecting April 15 states, in part:
On April 15, 1946, I was under sail fishing on the S/W peak of the Quero Banks-in position Lat. 44.10 N. and Long. 58.35 W on 45 fathoms of water. It was about 10.00 a.m. and I had my trawls set for the day. It was a clear day and the visibility was good. Each trawl had the usual three buoys, marker, flying "black balls" and each buoy would be approx. 4 mile apart. The sea was fairly smooth and the buoys could be quite readily seen a distance of approx. 4 of a mile away.
There were several trawlers, which in my opinion were of foreign registry, fishing near by me but I am unable to identify any of them.
At about the time mentioned above, while my men were engaged hauling the trawls, some foreign trawler approached me from a S/E direction and dragged through part of my trawls, destroying approx. $100 worth of lines and hooks together with the fish we had on the trawls they destroyed. It all happened so suddenly that I did not have a chance to warn him or contact him by radio, in order to avoid the incident. The trawler I am referring to came in from the S/E cut through about half of my trawls and when it turned out in an easterly direction it would be about half a mile away from me. It then carried on its dragging operation farther east. After having completed hauling the remaining part of my traw'ls, I decided to leave for_ elsewhere. I might add, however, that the fishing in this particular area was very , good at that time, but in view of the fact that the foreign trawlers disregarded the rights of other fishermen on the banks I considered it unwise to run the chance of losing more gear.
I am not in a position to say what nationality this trawler was, neither do any of my crew members because we were not close enough to it to be able to obtain its name or number.
The incident of April 23 is almost similar to the one I have just described. One paragraph in the affidavit reads:
At the time I made my investigation, as described above, I did not know what damage, if any at all, has been caused by this trawler dragging through my trawls, however, when my men had finished hauling the trawls set that day I found I had lost about $75 worth of lines and hooks.
The incident on that date is similar in that neither the name nor the nationality of the trawler was secured. With respect to the incident of May 25, the affidavit is as follows:
On May 25, 1946, I was under sail fishing on the east end of the Quero banks-position, Lat. 44.50N. and 57.45 W.. on 26 fathoms of water. It was an exceptionally fine day and visibility was perfect-the sea was smooth and the fish was plentiful at this particular time. All around me I could see anywheres between ten to fifteen foreign trawlers fishing with dragnets. At the time the incident, which I am about to describe happened, occurred I did not recognize any of these trawlers.

It was about 3.00 p.m. and I had my trawls out for my second set-what we call the afternoon set. I had 33 lines to each small boat with the usual buoys on each line, approx 4 mile apart. On the western end of the trawls I had plaeed an extra large buoy which we refer to as a mark buoy. On a clear day and calm sea a person can see this "mark buoy" a distance of about five miles. My trawler was located at the west end of the trawls and my men were engaged dressing the fish from the first set.
At about the time above mentioned I sighted some foreign trawler approaching my trawls from the south. I immediately started my engine and proceeded east along the south side of my trawls in order to head this trawler off. When I got alongside of it, I called and shouted, as a matter of a warning, to the captain and his men who were on deck, but for some unknown reason they did not seem to pay any attention to my warning and signals. It did not seem to slow down any at all until it reached the buoys on the south side of the trawls. He then hauled his nets up, after having brought the trawler to a stop, but shortly afterward dropped the nets again and steamed west right alongside my men who were then in the small boats engaged hauling the trawls. He then passed through between the "mark buoy" and the west end of my trawls, turned starboard in a N/E direction and again dragged in to my trawls in the N/W corner of my set. While this was going on I steamed up alongside of him again and made every effort to warn him to keep away from my trawls but without result-it is true that as they were foreigners, perhaps they did not understand what I was saying, but as this was a clear day there is no reason why they did not see the buoys and also my men who were then in the small boats engaged hauling the trawls. After it cleared out of my gear it continued in an easterly direction and I did not see it again.
As the trawler departed from the scene, after having caused approx. $200 worth of damage to my gear, I managed to secure its number located on the port-bow. I wrote it down on [DOT] a piece of paper and kept it in my possession for some time, however, I later lost this paper and I am not in a position to recall the figures I wrote down.
After completing hauling the remaining part of my trawls, I decided to leave this location and go elsewhere. I then went to the Grand Banks and on my way there I counted thirty-five foreign trawlers fishing in the vicinity of the eastern part of the Quero Banks.
I have made enquiries among my crew members to see if they are in a position to recall or identify the trawler above mentioned, but neither can they recall its description or number.


Robert Henry Winters: These affidavits are highly significant, in that they indicate that although departmental officials asked these skippers specifically to identify the trawlers by nation of registry, in no instance were they able to do so. This gives a pretty good idea of the difficulty the government is encountering in trying to deal with this problem internationally. Can the minister say how many schooners suffered damage, and the approximate dollar value of that damage to date?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Five schooners suffered damage totalling $1,350, and eight schooners

Supply-Fisheries
whose skippers were interviewed suffered no damage at all.


Mr. FERGUSON:: I do not see why these particular fishermen should waste so much of the government's time over an amount of S75. From my knowledge of fishermen in my part of the country, in the Georgian bay area, particularly around Collingwood, if any person destroyed their nets to an amount of $75, particularly a Spaniard, they would take hold of him by the scruff of the neck and chase him back to his own country. They would not waste the government's time in writing letters. A man who cannot protect his own interests to the extent of $75 ought to stop wasting our time.


Robert Henry Winters: I would say to the hon. member that sail chases steam in some cases.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: There are a few things I should like to mention. It would appear to me that some employees of the Department of Fisheries are underpaid in comparison with what is paid in other departments for similar services. One case I have in mind is the crew of the Fundy Rover, a patrol boat in the bay of Fundy belonging to this department. Four men comprise the crew of this boat and they are obliged to be away from home practically the whole year. The deck hand, with whom I am well acquainted, is a veteran of the last war where he was seriously wounded. For his services during the year he is paid $80 a month. It costs him $20 a month to live on board the boat and, when superannuation deductions of $4 a month are made he has about $55 a month to take home. This man is married with a family; he is an experienced seaman and is a war veteran. I trust the department will consider seriously granting a generous increase to the crews of these patrol boats, particularly when men who have been employed in recent months by the department to do similar work and who have had less experience are receiving more than some employees who have served over a great period of years. I would also be interested in knowing why living allowances are paid in some provinces and are not paid to employees doing exactly the same work in other provinces.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I do not have complete control over the matter of wages, because those things are eventually determined by the treasury board. I assure the hon. member that I will make every effort to see that increases are granted, but I cannot always get what I want. Then there are instances where the labour
board must be consulted. I am informed that living allowances are paid only for services in remote sections of the country.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Will the minister explain what are the remote sections?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: What does my hon. friend mean by living allowances? Does he mean found on the boat?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Yes. These men are obliged to be away from home the year round.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: If it is found that the hon. member is referring to, I am advised that that is applicable only to remote sections of the Pacific coast.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Another matter to which I should like to direct the attention of the department is the necessity of providing office space for fisheries inspectors. Other civil servants such as customs officials, immigration inspectors, postal officials, harbour masters and so on have in most cases been provided with offices by their respective departments. During the past three or four months I have had some experience in trying to get office space for one fisheries inspector, and I have found that there is very little cooperation between the different government departments in connection with furnishing office space. In many cases public buildings are being maintained in towns where fisheries inspectors reside, but they cannot get office space. This discriminatory and selfish attitude should be condemned and, wherever possible, all civil servants should receive exactly the same consideration. When a fisheries inspector uses his own home for office space a fair rental should be paid by the department. I cannot understand why there is so little cooperation between the different departments.
There is one other thing I should like to mention which I believe comes under this same item. My remarks last December were critical with regard to the wages paid to fisheries guardians. Since then, their rate of pay has been increased from $2.25 a day to $2.70. I realize that this was a twenty per cent increase, but I trust that the government will consider another raise for these guardians. They are doing good work; it is only seasonal employment and I hope something can be done for them.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: As far as office space for officials of the department is concerned, that matter is being considered in connection with the reorganization we are putting through. I think my hon. friend knows how I feel
Supply-Fisheries

about the matter of wages. I have not always been able to get what I wanted, but I always do the best I can.


James Sinclair: I
would remind the minister of the question I asked about the extraordinary situation which exists on the fishing grounds of British Columbia where, in connection with any violation of the regulations, the fishery officer is policeman, prosecutor and judge. If the fisherman does not plead guilty before the fishery supervisor and wants to be heard by a regular magistrate, his licence is taken away until such time as he can be heard. I suggest that either the Department of Justice send magistrates around to the fishing districts or that these men be admitted to bail if they do not want to plead guilty before the fishery supervisor.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: These powers have been in the Fisheries Act for some years.


James Sinclair: That does not make them good.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I do not allege that. Section 5, subsection 2 of the act reads:
Every fishery officer shall for all the purposes of this act and the regulations made thereunder be a justice of the peace during his term of office as a fishery officer.
Apparently that is the section under which he would act as a judge. Then section 35 reads:
Any fishery officer or justice of the peace may. on view, convict any person committing any of the offences punishable under the provisions of this act, or under any regulations made hereunder, and may remove and detain any fish unlawfully caught and any boat, vessel, fishing apparatus or other materials used in committing any offence or in connection therewith, or which such fishery officer or justice of the peace has reason to believe was so used.
Then section 64 deals with confiscation, and it reads in part:
. . . shall be confiscated to His Majesty and may be seized and confiscated on view, by any fishery officer, or taken and removed by any person for delivery to any fishery officer or justice of the peace.
I am quite ready to admit that those are rather strong sections, certainly contrary to anything we are accustomed to in British countries. However, they have been in the act for some years. The reason would appear to be that in these remote sections there are no magistrates. It might be possible to work out a system whereby the provinces would have magistrates in these remote sections, but I assure my hon. friend that sir.ce he has brought the matter up I will certainly look into it further.


James Sinclair: In
the meantime, could not instructions be given to these fishery inspectors, who act as judges as well as prosecutors, that if a man wants to plead not guilty he should be admitted to bail and allowed to go on fishing until he can appear before a magistrate in the fall? I have in mind one case which occurred in my constituency. A father and son were picked up by an inspector. Although the father and son were living together, it was alleged that they were fishing too close to each other's nets. They did not choose to plead guilty. They were men with a long record, and the reason for that long record was the fact that they had always fished in remote areas and were ready to pay a $50 fine rather than be prevented from fishing for the rest of the season. But this time, being Scotch and stubborn, they decided they were not going to plead guilty. They were remanded and the fishery inspector seized their gear. Two or three weeks later they were taken before a stipendiary magistrate and the case was dismissed on the ground that it was trivial. The men went to get their gear and they found that it had been piled in the sun and had rotted. These men had been out of fishing for three weeks; when they went to get their gear it was rotten, and it took them one year to succeed in a damage action against the crown. That type of administration of justice does not bring respect for the fisheries department. I understand that the judgment against the fisheries department was divided as to costs between the fisheries department and the fishery supervisor who made the seizure. I would ask the minister whether the inspector paid his seizure costs out of his own pocket or whether the government refunded that to him.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: My understanding is that
the case has been appealed and a new trial ordered.


James Sinclair: The crown appealed?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I think it would not be the crown but the officer who was being sued.


James Sinclair: That again brings home just what the average fisherman is up against. These two Scotch fishermen fighting for justice launch a suit against the crown for damages, and now the supervisor launches an appeal against the judgment of the court. That is just going to discourage the fishermen from thinking they will ever get their just desserts. They will figure that it is much easier to plead guilty and pay the $50. That only emphasizes

Supply-Fish eries
that the minister should bring British justice into the administration of his department.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I shall make every effort
to do that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I say, in connection with the case which the hon. member from Vancouver North has brought up, that when I was acting in his behalf I had some correspondence on the matter and the Department of Fisheries agreed in writing as to everything the hon. member for Vancouver North said, and why these Scotsmen should have to carry the case farther when the department agreed that it was wrong is beyond me.
I overlooked one thing when I was speaking before. I want.to compliment the minister. I do not do that usually; I do so now partly for the benefit of some other ministers of whom I see one here, and I wish the others were present. The Minister of Fisheries when he paid a visit to British Columbia last year got in contact with every member from British Columbia. I say that for the benefit of the rest of the cabinet. The Minister of Fisheries has not always taken my advice, but he has at least done me the honour of consulting my riding.
I want now to ask a couple of questions and I hope for a favourable answer. Has any provision been made to supply a patrol boat for the Fraser river? The reason I ask is that, so far as the Fraser river in my riding is concerned, the only patrol vessels there in the past have been a couple of rowboats, and in certain cases the fisheries guardians had to pay for the hire of the boats themselves.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: There is provision in these estimates for a proper patrol boat, but on account of the shortage of labour it may be difficult to get it built just now. That is as far as I can go.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am delighted that the minister has assured me that we are to have a patrol boat, but the other part of his answer, that there is a difficulty on account of the shortage of labour-


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Labour and materials.


George Alexander Cruickshank: War Assets Corporation was giving away hundreds of boats suitable for this, very purpose, so that argument does not hold with me. I hope the minister will see that one of these boats is purchased immediately for the upper portion of the Fraser river.
Is provision being made to keep the fishery guardians on the payroll throughout the year?
The department requires, and quite properly, that these men must have practical experience, must know the fisheries regulations, and so on. Yet in the past, so far as the Fraser river is concerned, these men have been kept on the payroll for only six months in the year. To expect a qualified man, with a practical know- . ledge of fisheries and a thorough knowledge of the regulations, to carry on this work for only six months of the year and then have to seek other employment is nonsense. I have taken this matter up with the minister's predecessor on several occasions, and I ask the minister now whether consideration is being given to keeping these men on the payroll for twelve months in the year. No other department expects qualified men, with the knowledge and experience these men have, to work for only six months in the year and then look for another job.


James Sinclair: How about the House of Commons stenographers?


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member may do something popular along that line. In my riding we have four fishery guardians, two of whom were employed the year round and the other two were let out, if I remember correctly, at the end of July. It is not reasonable to expect these men, who, I expect, would be married war veterans, to work for only six months out of the year for S100 a month and then look out for other employment, particularly since they are required to have a practical knowledge of the fisheries and a thorough knowledge of the regulations, which they must have to carry them out properly. These men should be employed the year round.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: The hon. member will prob-'ably remember that I stated yesterday that the outside service of my department was to be reorganized. In this reorganization it is anticipated that, in any instance where fulltime service is required, the employee will be employed full-time. I think the hon. member will find that the situation will be relieved when the reorganization of the outside service is completed.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I thank the minister, but he qualified his answer by saying that they will be employed full-time where that is required. My argument is that when a man must have all these qualifications to be a fishery guardian provision should be made for his employment the whole year round and not for just six months.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Fisheries
[Stage Direction]
79. Educational extension service, $78,780.
Thomas John Bentley: I was going to ask the minister if this amount, the $25,000 in the previous item and the $56,000 in item 90 apply to the smaller fisheries in the provinces, particularly in Saskatchewan?
' Mr. BRIDGES: The previous item, 78, does not apply to the prairie provinces, but item 79 does in part. As to item 90 the answer there is no.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	[DOT]
Fisheries Research Board of Canada-
82. Operation and maintenance, $740,610.
Thomas Reid: I raised some objection last year to this vote, which shows a considerable increase. I would ask the minister to reconsider this vote because, in my opinion, the country is not getting full value for the money expended. I am not against scientists and I do not want my remarks to be interpreted that I am, but I know the experience we have had with scientists on the international salmon fisheries commission. If it had not been for the laymen on the commission; if the scientists had been allowed to spend money and do what they liked, we would not have obtained the results we did. Every year the scientists were asking for more money for various objects. I suggest that the minister consider revamping the whole fisheries research board, and that he include on it representatives of the fishing industry, of the canning industry, members of the provincial government and members of his own department.
I challenge any member of the house to refute what I am about to say. I can produce reports which were made by fishery experts forty years ago, which you will now find contained in the reports that are submitted to-day by the fisheries research board, and I contend that they are not doing the work from a practical point of view of the industry. I am not finding fault with the minister because he has not had time to check up on what they are doing; but from the fisherman's point of view, the practical point of view, I submit that the whole set-up is entirely wrong. In fact, had these estimates come up earlier I might have moved that the vote be reduced. I had declared my intention of doing so when they first came before us in November last, but it is too late in the session now to debate the issue fully. Here, however, we have $3,000,000 spent since the inception of the board just a few short years ago. From 1935 up to the present time this amount of money has been spent. I will not say that some good has not been accomplished, for example, in respect of
the freezing method, and some other matters

as well; but I invite any hon. member to go to Nanaimo station and later read the reports, as I have read them, and see for himself what is being done. I do not believe many hon. members have read all the reports of the fisheries research board, and after a careful study of the situation I would express the view that we are not getting the results we should expect. Let me quote the following article that has appeared in the press:
Fish species, fishing methods and modes of processing are considerably different on the Pacific than on the Atlantic coast. Eastern research board members need first-hand knowledge of -west coast conditions, and western board members tour the Atlantic coast for the same reason.
"We now have the money to carry out this travel policy," a research board official told The Standard. "During the war we had to pull in our belts. Now our personnel is increasing and our work is expanding tremendously."


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Will my hon. friend say what he is quoting from?


Thomas Reid: I am quoting from the Montreal Standard of June 22, 1946. Travelling may be necessary to some extent, but I suggest that last year there were some joy trips taken. We are increasing the amount this year by $198,000, and I would ask the minister for an explanation. I know he has not had time to keep his eye on the situation; but the actual fact is that he and his officials cannot control the board, and if the present tendency is not stopped they will come back next year and we shall find ourselves voting perhaps a million dollars. And what for? If the minister takes up this challenge I will bring reports from experts to prove the point I mentioned a moment ago. I am against the increase and I am inclined to move that it be reduced. I should like to hear what the minister has to say, what view he takes of the proposal I have made, that certain members of the fishing industry be called upon to constitute a practical board to map out a programme for the research board. As matters stand, we are not getting the results that we should look for.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: The fisheries research board comprises nine scientists from various universities in Canada together with two representatives from the Department of Fisheries and four representatives of industry, two from the Pacific coast and two from the Atlantic coast. The members receive no remuneration for their services, except the chairman, who is given an honorarium of $1,000. Travelling and living expenses are paid when incurred by the members in attending meetings or on business for the board. My hon. friend criticizes the

Supply-Fisheries
board. May I read the names of those who constitute this body. I think hon. members will realize, when I do so, that these are not men who would be inclined to waste the public money of Canada. The chairman is Professor A. T. Cameron, university of Manitoba, one of the best known biochemists in the world. In fact, he is professor of biochemistry of that university. The honorary secretary is the assistant deputy minister of this department. The other members are Professor C. W. Argue, of the university of New Brunswick; Mr. J. H. Deane, of Vancouver, British Columbia, who represents the fishermen's cooperative and who, I am sure, the hon. member will admit is a representative of industry. Then there are Professor J. R. Dymond of the university of Toronto, who is extremely well known throughout the country; Professor W. A. Clemens of the university of British Columbia; Professor
J.	H. L. Johnstone of Halifax, Nova Scotia, a member of the faculty of Dalhousie university; Mr. O. F. MacKenzie of Halifax, Nova Scotia -and I am sure he would not like to be told that he was not a representative of industry- Mr. Burke Melnerney of Halifax, who was secretary-manager of the united maritime fishermen. Another member is Professor Pre-fontaine, professor of biology in the university of Montreal. Another member is Professor G. D. Reed of Queens university. Another member is Mr. J. A. Rodd, director of fish culture, of this department; another member is Professor D. L. Thomson of McGill university. Then there is Professor J. L. Tremblay of Laval university, and the last named member of this body is Mr. R. E. Walker of Vancouver, British Columbia, who is with British Columbia Packers. I do not think the hon. member would suggest that he was not a representative of industry.
These are the men who direct the affairs of the fisheries research board and, when my hon. friend criticizes the board, he is criticizing these gentlemen. They are the men who direct its affairs entirely and they come within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries. Therefore I do not hesitate to say that I am proud of the work they have done, and I am happy that the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, speaking yesterday, made fitting reference to the work of the research board.
I should like to read some letters with reference to the work now being done by the fisheries research board, and first I will quote from one received from the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Cooperative Association. This is dated December 28, 1945:
During the past years our membership consisting of approximately ,1,500 British Columbia fishermen has followed with great interest the research carried out by the fisheries research
board's stations across the dominion. We are all mostly interested in the work carried on closest to where our own part of the industry is affected, although we wish to go on record as being keenly interested in the welfare of the country as a whole, and therefore, no selfish interest is our guide in the recommendations contained in this letter.
The research work that is of the utmost importance to us at this time and which we strongly recommend your department to give its consideration is as follows:
1.	The Skeena river investigation started in
1944.	. ' [DOT]	, . ,
2.	The over-all salmon investigation which was actually started in 1945.
3.	The trawl investigation started in 1944.
4.	The institution of oceangraphic studies of sea life in general.
I will not read the whole of the letter, which is a very long one. It is signed by T. H. Sorensen, secretary of the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Cooperative Association. Let me quote from another letter with regard to the present work of the board. This one is from the Deep Sea Fishermen's Federal Union, Number 80 of British Columbia. It is dated Prince Rupert, December 27, 1945, and contains the following statement:
As the annual meeting of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada will be held in Ottawa on January 1 to 10, we wish to express our appreciation of the work carried out to date by this board regarding investigations of the fisheries, and we feel, it should not only be continued in the future but should be extended to all commercial fisheries on this coast, not only for the purpose of propagation, hut it should also be carried on with the view to making recommendations for control of production of any given fishery whenever it was found too heavily exploited.
Then they make certain statements and ask us to do certain things in the following
respects:
(1)	The necessity of continuing the Skeena river investigation to its conclusion.
(2)	The essentiality of increasing the over-all salmon investigation into a full-scale programme.
(3)	The necessity for a more extensive study of the otter-trawl fishing and the populations of fish which it catches.
(4)	The immediate essentiality to institute oceangraphic studies.
There is another communication from the Fishing Vessel Owners' Association of British Columbia, under date of January 4, 1946, in which similar statements are made. They say:
This association appreciates the great value of the investigations being conducted by the Fisheries Research Board of Canada under the guidance of your department. We would be very pleased if you would bring to the attention of the annual meeting of the board our appreciation of their work and our recommendations for future investigations.
I do not know whether the hon. member is criticizing some particular item or some
Supply-Fisheries

special part of the work of the research board; but I do tell him this, that we are living in an age of research. It was my privilege last evening to listen to Field Marshal Montgomery in an address he gave at a private dinner, and one thing he emphasized was the necessity of research. It is research that has accomplished so many things and is responsible for so many advances in this world. In research, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, scientists cannot discover in a day or in a week, cannot discover overnight, the results which they are seeking. A great many scientists are working on the research board and devoting all their time and knowledge to the work they are doing. We have had instances of men with the degree of Ph.D.-and I am ashamed to say it- working for the board and receiving a remuneration of $2,200 a year. If they are not working for love of the work, then I do not know what it is for. If my hon, friend will mention some individual item that he is criticizing I am quite ready to discuss it with him, but if it is a general allegation that he wishes to make or an item which he desires to cht down and which is in the estimates for the fisheries research board, then I must advise him that I shall resist it.


Thomas Reid: Every time that one rises to say a word or two about the fisheries research board, so-called, he is immediately accused of being against scientists and research work. We did not need to get a lecture from the minister about scientists. I might mention to him that he had one by the name of Forester. I met him last year. He has been at this work for a lifetime, and when he was asked a simple question which anybody could answer he could not answer it. The question he was asked was, were sport fish predators? Everybody who knows anything about fishing knows sport fish are predators. This man said he did not know, although he had spent practically a lifetime at the work. I am not against scientists or against scientific research. I hope the minister does not repeat what he said a moment ago, because I am with him, but I want this research to be guided and controlled. He has not yet had time to find out what they are doing. I say to him that if he does not guide them his department will get into difficulties. They cannot be left to themselves because, if they are, they will not produce the best results which should benefit the fishing industry.
The minister mentioned a lot of high-sounding names. How many times do they meet? Is there a representative of the industry among them?
fM>. Bridges.]


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I am advised that there are four members of the board who do represent industry. If the hon. member fdels that there should be more and makes the suggestion consideration might be given to increasing the board, but it would have to be done by an amendment to the act which establishes the fisheries research board.


Thomas Reid: How many times do they meet?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: The board itself meets once a year; the executive meets four times a year, and the sub-executive in the different parts of Canada meets four times.


Thomas Reid: Then they meet all together once a year.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: They meet all together once a year.


Thomas Reid: And lay out the programme.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: They meet here in Ottawa once a year and approve the programme of fisheries research.


Thomas Reid: The minister is satisfied that this increase of $198,000 is worth while?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I am. [DOT]


Thomas Reid: I should not have asked that question, because I would have known the minister would say that, or the item would not be in the estimates. I will say to the minister that at the next session of parliament I shall ask questions on this matter again, and I would advise him not to listen entirely to men who have a lot of high degrees. That kind of thing does not always mean something.
,Mr. BRIDGES: It means a lot to me.


Thomas Reid: It is results that I am looking for, and the minister is not getting them, no matter what he says.


Mr. McLURE:: Does this item include the work of Doctor Needier?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Yes.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to say a word in connection with the work of Doctor Needier and also Doctor Kerswill on oyster culture. Through their work these men have brought back a very fine industry to Prince Edward Island and the maritime provinces generally. Their work is highly recommended everywhere. Had it not been for the work of Doctor Needier and this department we should have lost a real industry in the actual farming of oysters. For that reason I support this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Thomas Reid: On division.

Supply-Fisheries
86. To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission to overcome obstructions to the ascent of soekeye salmon at Hell's Gate canyon, and for investigating and overcoming obstructions to such salmon at other points on the Fraser river watershed (revote), $400,000.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like .to
say a word on this item. Hell's Gate is in my riding.


Angus MacInnis: It would be.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am glad the fishing industry of British Columbia revolves around my riding. The hon. member for Vancouver East will agree with what I am going to say. A contract was let to construct this work. Excellent work was done. I am not criticizing the work, and nobody finds fault with what was done. As hon members know, it was an international contract, paid for by both the United States and Canada. I have heard rumours in my riding to the effect that the contracting company had absolutely no previous experience with this work, yet it underbid other contractors by some hundreds of thousands of dollars, including one company which had experience in all parts of the world in dealing with that type of rock. I am informed, but not officially, that this company is coming back, after having accepted the contract at a given figure, to ask for a cost-plus arrangement. It claims that it did not make anything out of it, and is now going to ask for several hundred thousand dollars more. A farmer who takes a chance on a contract for wheat, milk or anything else and does not make any money out of it, has to abide by his contract. If this company has any idea that it is going to come back-and I know one of the executives of this company said that it did not make any money on the price it accepted, because he said it in my presence, and that, therefore, it would be looked after-and receive more money, it will hear from the people of Fraser Valley. I say to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that if this government or any other government attempt to give to this company what I would call a handout above the price it accepted on the contract, they will hear plenty from the people in my riding.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
8S. To provide for transportation, dressing and dyeing and other expenses incidental to receiving and disposing of fur seal skins accruing to Canada pursuant to provisional fur seal agreement between Canada and the United States by exchange of notes dated December 8 and 119, 4942, $300,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: When this vote came up
last year I criticized it and took some objection to it, but that was on the ground that we did not get enough revenue from it. After speaking to the minister on several occasions about it this session, I am sure that everybody will be in favour of it. I wish the minister had the time to explain it, but I shall not ask him to do so now, because he is anxious to get his estimates through. On another occasion I hope that he will be able to give us information as to the plans he has in mind with regard to the fur seal industry. I also hope that he will be able to come before the committee and tell us that he has a revenue of over half a million dollars from this investment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
90. To provide for the extension of educational work in cooperative producing and selling among fishermen, $56,000.
William Scottie Bryce: I told the hon. member for Swift Current that the minister has said the prairie provinces could not participate in this vote. Was I right in that?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I would advise the hon. member for Selkirk that this item of $56,000 is made up of grants to three universities in Canada: St. Francis Xavier, $37,000; Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, $14,000; university of British Columbia, $5,000, making a total of $56,000. It is for educational work among the fishermen themselves. It started first on the east coast, as a result of the work of the Maclean commission of 1927-28.


William Scottie Bryce: Is there any possibility of arranging matters so that the universities of the prairie provinces may benefit from it. We are just as good cooperatives as anyone else.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: This is just for universities which maintain extension departments. I do not know whether the universities of the three prairie provinces maintain extension departments.


William Scottie Bryce: Yes, they do.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Agriculture, but not
fisheries.


William Scottie Bryce: If they took that under consideration would money be available?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: It certainly would not be available this year. I can assure the hon. member that I am always ready to hear representations pertaining to the extension work of fisheries. I can make no promise, but I would certainly be ready to hear representations and give consideration to them.
Supply-Fisheries


Thomas Reid: I asked the minister a question a while ago, but he did not answer it and I should like to repeat it now, if he has cooled off a little. We all like the Minister of Fisheries, but he has not had time to look into these matters. He will perhaps find out in later years that the member for New Westminster was right. Be that as it may, it will be too late then.
What steps has he taken, or is he taking any steps regarding the transportation of fish by air so as to bring it to the prairie provinces, as referred to by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle? Other countries are now transporting fish by air, so that it is fresh to the people in inland cities. Has the minister made any investigations, and what steps are likely to be taken with a view to inaugurating some such service in this country?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: The actual study of the matter is being made by the fisheries research board.


Thomas Reid: Oh, that is bad. We may wait for fifteen years, then.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I do not think you will wait for fifteen years. I think the hon. member will remember the development of the overhead bunker car for the transportation of frozen fish. The board did a good deal along that line. I know it is being studied; it is something in which I am personally interested, and I am going to follow it up.


Thomas Reid: I will ask the minister next year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-[DOT]
92. To provide for the construction of a. vessel of particular design for experimental fishing for herring and mackerel (revote), $25,000.
Mr. ARCHIBALD:: Last year I brought up a point which was drawn to my attention by the halibut fishermen.. The whalers used to notice schools of fish in the Jap current, about forty miles west of the northern tip of the Queen Charlotte islands, and at one time they thought they were salmon, but now they think they may be tuna. I ask that some investigation be done about that, inasmuch as the fishing season tends to become shorter, and a great many boats might be engaged there. I see there is an appropriation for experimental fishing, which is what I am asking the minister to do in these waters.


Thomas Reid: Give it to the research board.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: As a matter of fact this item is for fishing in the gulf of St. Lawrence. Did the hon. member bring up this matter at the last session?


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Yes.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Well, I assure the hon. member that if I have not looked into it, I certainly will.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
7SO. To provide for transportation, dressing and dyeing, and other expenses incidental to receiving and disposing of fur seal skins accruing to Canada pursuant to provisional fur seal agreement between Canada and the United States by exchange of notes dated December 8 and 19, 1942-further amount required, $125,000.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Why this extra amount under this item? Is it on account of catching more seal?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: When the main estimates, in which an amount of $300,000 was provided for the above service, were being prepared, it was not anticipated that the processing and dyeing of fur seal skins at London would be stepped up as quickly from wartime conditions as has been the case. Deliveries are being made of 1,000 skins a month, and to take care of processing, customs and other expenses a total amount of $425,000 for the fiscal year will be required. Of this amount, I would point out, approximately one-quarter is to cover payment of customs, excise and sales tax charges. It is all a bookkeeping entry. This is one of the few things we make a profit on.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It comes back; I know that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
57. Departmental administration, $803,594.
Gordon Graydon: What is the proper item under which we can discuss the wartime prices and trade board?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Under demobilization and reconversion, page 66 of the main estimates. Items 488 and 489.


Gordon Graydon: It is not under departmental administration.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. There are special items for it.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Would the minister say a word as to the substantial increase in departmental administration? I suppose one would have hoped, evidently wrongly, that after the end of the war there might have been some let-up in administrative work. There is a substantial increase.


Gordon Graydon: It takes more money to spend more money!

Supply-Finance


Mr. MAYHEW:: This increase is mostly on personnel. There has been quite an increase in the staff, particularly in the cheque adjustment branch. Hon. members will notice, when we come to demobilization and reconstruction, that there is approximately a $3,000,000 reduction, so that there will be a reduction, on the whole, of about one and a half million dollars with respect to this item. It will be realized that, as the personnel of the army, the air force and the navy are demobilized, there is quite a large increase in the amount of work at home. These men are still receiving pay or allowances of some kind from the government; some are going to university, some attending other types of training, et cetera.	.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do I understand that the parliamentary assistant says that this increase is really to be offset against the figures shown in item 487?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes; "comptroller of the treasury," item 487 in the main estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
59. Royal Canadian Mint, including the Dominion of Canada assay office, $583,650.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is the reason for the substantial increase in this item?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: There will be considerably more activity in refining and in connection with the striking of medals for the armed services. It is practically all temporary staff. The permanent staff remains as it was.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask a question which arises from one asked some weeks ago by the hon. member for Wellington South, as to whether or not there would be a discontinuance of the minting of those mean, measly copper five-cent pieces which have several corners on them and are in public disfavour everywhere. Are they to be withdrawn from circulation? I do not know what a five-cent piece could be used for these days; but when we get back to some kind of normalcy, when the five-cent piece might be of some use again, shall we have a decent type of coin, not of the kind now in circulation?
When the Minister of Finance replied to the hon. member he said the present multi-cornered five-cent piece would be withdrawn from circulation and a new one issued. What type of new one will take its place?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The hon. member is quite right; the copper coin is being withdrawn and an order has gone out to that effect. A five-cent nickel piece will take its place.


Gordon Graydon: So that we shall not be bothered any longer with finding out whether we have in our pocket a one-cent or a five-cent piece; they will be real nickels, will they?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Superannuation and retirement benefits-
62. Government's contribution to the superannuation fund, $3,350,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: To what extent is this large increase made up of added personnel and, to what extent, of increased rates?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is accounted for chiefly by transfers of personnel who are under the retirement fund to the superannuation fund. Under a 1944 amendment they were given the option within one year to transfer from one type of pension plan to the other. Over
3.000	have transferred, and that accounts for the increase.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Could the minister explain briefly the difference between the two? I am not thoroughly familiar with it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not too familiar with it myself. However, it is my understanding that the retirement fund was simply a savings fund to which contributions were made by a five per cent reduction from a civil servant's salary. The superannuation fund is a contributory pension fund.


Angus MacInnis: The minister has indicated that the increased amount is on account of transfers from one fund to the other. I notice that the amount for administration is increased. Why is there that increase?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It requires more personnel and more accounts. As I said, there are 3,000 additional numbers of civil servants who are transferring from one fund to the other, and I believe the proportionate increase is not too large.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to bring a new matter to the attention of the Acting Minister of Finance, one which affects only a small number of those who were formerly in the civil service of Canada and who, at the time of the outbreak of war in 1939, were no longer in the civil service but were in receipt of superannuation. Some of these men were taken into the armed services in various capacities, having regard to their special qualifications to perform special duties during the war. I am told they were asked to join the armed services because their country needed them in a time of war, and they were in a position
Supply-Finance

to make a contribution which others not so favourably situated could not make. My information is that these people were assured that superannuation would be paid to them during their service in the armed forces, and that superannuation actually was paid, in addition to their pay of rank, up to May 3, 1940.
My further information is that all these persons regarded the payment of superannuation as well as service pay as one of the terms of contract between themselves and the government. Then, by order in council P.C. 51800 of May 3, 1940, the payment of superannuation to these persons was prohibited-not only to them, but to those in the services who had formerly been in receipt of superannuation. At the same time the order in council did not provide for any voluntary retirement in respect of those affected by it. These men had no choice but to remain in the armed services, despite the fact that the terms of service had been changed arbitrarily.
I could discuss this matter at considerable length, but in view of the fact that we are having long sittings to deal with these estimates I shall not do so. I could build up a certain volume of sentiment and establish a strong factual case in their favour. I speak, however, only to bring the matter to the attention of the minister in order that he may make a thorough investigation of circumstances as they affect these few people. Although there are only a dozen or so affected, the principle involved is important, and those who are affected feel they are being unjustly treated.
Civil servants who were actually in the civil service at the time they entered the armed forces were treated much differently. Their periods of service in the forces counted for superannuation benefits, the government absorbing the five per cent of the civil servant's salary, which would ordinarily have been deducted. But those superannuated civil servants who joined the armed services automatically, through the operation of the order in council, lost their superannuation during their period of service in the armed forces. Those whose implied contracts were broken appear to be in a different position.
I leave these facts for the consideration of the minister, at his earliest convenience, in the hope that he may decide that this group should receive further consideration by the department.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will look into the question raised by my hon. friend. I do not know whether he has all the facts, but in any event I will make a thorough investigation and see what is the situation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Mr. Graydon.l
Public debt charges-Servicing of public debt-
61,.	Commission for payment of interest on public debt, services of fiscal agents, London, registrar's fees, etc., $377,650.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I notice the amount for the interest on public debt payable in New York is down some $5,000,000, and I assume that is because large payments have been made in United States funds.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I can give the hon. member the items. On November 15 there was a three per cent loan, $40,000,000; there was a further one for $55,000,000; there was one for $30,000,000 and another for $30,000,000. The interest charges were $4,650,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous grants and contributions-
68. Royal Astronomical Society, $1,620.
Mr. KNOWLES:: Has the government
received a request from this society for a larger grant? If so, has the request been considered?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The policy of the department this year has been not to increase these grants, and if such a request was made the reply would have been to that effect.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to refer back to the cost of loan flotations, which is reduced by $4,350,000.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is another statutory item.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Cannot one be interested in a statutory item?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am informed that it is not expected that the amount of money we shall have to raise this year by borrowings will be anything like what it was in the previous fiscal period.


Gordon Graydon: Has the minister any statement to make with regard to the loan which will be open for public subscription this fall?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
70. Canadian Writers Foundation, $2,500.
Mr. HANSELL:: 
Douglas Charles Abbott: I will oppose it too.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: This is a new item, and strong recommendations were made in connection therewith. The purpose of the foundation is to provide financial assistance to Canadian writers of distinction who may be in urgent need of such aid. At present many pressing cases must be neglected because of the lack of the necessary funds. The officers are:	chairman, Pelham Edgar; honorary
secretary, Wilfred Eggleston; honorary treasurer, H. S. Southam; executive secretary, Charles Clay.


Ernest George Hansell: It is very nice to hear those names, and some of them may be bosom friends of mine, although I do not know whether they are or not. Simply because this organization has certain patrons who permit their names to be published on the literature does not mean a thing to me. Are these writers of such distinction that they are in poverty and need a little money? I confess that I do not know anything about this organization, and I ask that the item stand until next session so that we can get more information. I move that it be reduced to $1.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The government is not vitally interested in this grant any more than it is in some of the others, but provision was made in the estimates only after careful investigation. The foundation referred to here is supported by the Canadian Authors Association, and the executive, as will be seen from the list read by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, is composed of reputable, well known Canadian citizens. If the committee feels that it is improper to make this grant the government does not want to insist on it; but, as I say, the Minister of Finance, after considering the matter, decided that this was a proper case to include in the estimates. If the committee wants to defer it for another year, well and good, but I do not think it should be done.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I support this item wholeheartedly. Our writers have had a hard road to travel in the past and they should get a little encouragement. If I had had an opportunity of preparing a speech on this item I could speak more convincingly of the outstanding need for support for our writers, our poets and 63260-351
our artists. I think this item shows that there are some men of heart in the Department of Finance.


Mr. JAQUES:: Would the minister tell us if this item has anything to do with the organization known as Canadian Authors, Writers and Artists? I remember distinctly that a few years ago, and not so long ago as that, they were purely a communist outfit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You would not call Mr. Southam a communist, would you?


Norman Jaques: It was a purely communist outfit. I want to second the ideas of the hon. member for Macleod. There has been too much altogether of this furthering of communists and their ideas.


Angus MacInnis: I think I am as opposed to communism as anyone can be.


Norman Jaques: Huh!


Angus MacInnis: Yes, huh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope Hansard knows how to spell "huh!"


Angus MacInnis: If the purpose of this vote is to indicate the government's desire to assist people like artists, authors and writers, I do not think it will break the country. Canada is a very difficult country for authors and artists to make a living in. We have not the population necessary to make a profitable market for books by Canadian authors. The result is that when an author shows promise and produces writing that is in demand he usually moves to the United States, and Canada loses another valuable citizen. So that, while we should be careful that none of the money voted by this parliament is used for purposes inimical to the welfare of Canada,
I think we should support the vote and I hope that in future years we may increase it.


Ernest George Hansell: I know these are all nice things and I do not want to be thought as being against the support of legitimate enterprises.
I am all for such things as scholarships. I am all for such assistance as the Department of Finance might give to artists of one kind and another; of course I am, but I think we should be very careful in matters of this kind. Could not an amount of this kind be appropriated for scholarships for people who have ambitions along the line of authorship, and could not such things be handled through our various provincial departments of education? There have been arising in the past few years too many nondescript organizations, the names of which are simply smoke-screens for something else which, once it gets in the thin end of the wedge, is there to stay, and the first thing we know the vote appears in the estimates

Supply-M iscellaneous

year after year, yes, and increases with _ the years. I am not against proper appropriations for proper purposes, but I think in these matters we have to be careful, and I suggest that this item be left over until next year.


Gordon Graydon: I do not think the government has made the right kind of case for their estimate. It is not very often that I have to come to their rescue, but I think in this case I must. It is a case with which the minister and his parliamentary assistant may not have been familiar through the years. May I point out to the hon. member for Macleod that I think he knows me well enough, as I know him, to know I no more than he, would want a five-cent piece to get into the hands of anyone who was going to advocate communism or anything like it in this country, because we cannot afford to waste our money in that way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where did you get that red bow-tie?


Gordon Graydon: I borrowed it for the
occasion.
This is not a new vote.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In its present form it is new.


Gordon Graydon: I disagree with the minister on its being a new vote, because in 1931 or 1932, by agreement among the parties in this house-this was before I came into it, but I learned about the matter afterwards- a vote of $2,500 was included in the estimates for this purpose. If hon. members will look at the estimates through the years they will find that that vote was continued all through the years up until about a year ago or the year before when a prominent Canadian writer died. The vote was for exactly the same amount, $2,500, not for the purposes of the Canadian Writers Foundation but, if my memory serves me correctly, for the purpose of preparing a report on cultural conditions in Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Gordon Graydon: I think everybody remembers that. It is certainly very clear in my memory. From 1931 or 1932 that vote has been regularly passed unanimously by the house. I understand that Professor Edgar, whose name has been mentioned as chairman of this foundation, who, incidentally, was one of my professors when I went to university many long years ago, and who has none of those red leanings for which neither the hon. member for Macleod nor myself has any use, was interested in this vote all through those years, and the estimate before us under another name is for a similar purpose. The vote

was formerly used for the benefit of a distinguished Canadian writer, perhaps more than one. I am not going to mention names to this committee because that would not be fair, but I know the vote was used in one particular instance to give a distinguished Canadian in the evening of his life at least some semblance of comfort and security. I think this vote is simply an extension of that policy. It is not, as my hon. friend suggests, a new approach, inserting the thin end of the wedge to get something. If it were, I would be more critical of it than I am. But I think, with that explanation and because perhaps the minister was not familiar with the vote in previous years-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was familiar with it. The previous appropriation was paid to a distinguished Canadian for the preparation of a report on social and cultural conditions in Canada. That distinguished Canadian died a year or two ago, and the vote was not included in last year's estimates. The same amount appears in this year's estimates for the foundation. The purpose will be somewhat similar, but I do not think the vote will be restricted to one individual.


Gordon Graydon: I am just as much
interested as the hon. member for Macleod. Will the minister undertake to see that parliament is given a full report on how the money is spent from now on, so that we shall have a careful check on it to see that it is going into the right places?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It might be difficult to
disclose names. That is the only reservation I would put on that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does this not go to a foundation to which other contributions may be made from other sources?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: It is to support the writers foundation fund. It is financial assistance to them. It is not only money that is going to be given to needy writers.


The CHAIRMAN:: Does the hon. member for Macleod wish to press the amendment?


Ernest George Hansell: Even if I do move to reduce it to $1, I know it will not pass, but I object. It can be passed on division, if you like. I will not hold it up.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Carried on division.


William Ross Macdonald: The amendment is
withdrawn by consent, and the vote carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

Suppl y-Treasury
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock. General-
72. To provide for the expenses of the comptroller of the treasury's office, $6,966,745.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like a little more explanation as to exactly what the functions of the comptroller of the treasury are, because the increase is a large one. I should like to understand it a little bit better.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, provides for the appointment of a comptroller of the treasury for the purpose of maintaining more complete control over the administration of the consolidated revenue fund. The act assigns the following duties to the comptroller: To remit all public moneys out of the consolidated revenue fund by cheque or other instrument as directed by the treasury board; certification that there is a balance available in the appropriations authorized by parliament for the specific service before any issue of public funds shall be made; certification that there are sufficiently unencumbered balances available out of the amount authorized by parliament for the particular service to pay any commitment before the contract or undertaking involving a charge on the consolidated revenue fund is entered into.
Since the outbreak of war, there has been a large increase in the work performed in many of the offices of the comptroller, owing to an enlarged working staff and increased expenditures. Funds have been made available under the war appropriations only for expenditures in connection with distinctly war services.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That does not explain why there is this increase of nearly 82 million. Now that the war is over, I would have thought the work would lessen.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: 
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I saw that, and that puzzled me very much.
I could not understand why there was so much new temporary assistance in. this list. If we were dealing with three or four years ago I would have understood it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Many other things enter into it, such as heavy additional expenditures in payment for veterans affairs, for gratuities, for the Veterans Land Act, and all that sort of thing. All these heavy payments are being made under veterans affairs. All these have to be audited, checked and approved by the department of the comptroller of the treasury, and that is why there is that big increase under the heading of "temporary assistance" rather than under the heading of "permanent staff", which is up from S38 to 904.


Gordon Graydon: Before this item passes, I want to draw the attention of the minister to a matter which received considerable attention in the standing committee on external affairs. During the sittings of that committee the question arose as to what kind of audit or what measure of control was being exercised over expenditures of this country in the international field. If the minister will turn to the final report of the external affairs committee which was concurred in-I have not it with me at the moment, but that is not material to my' argument-he will see that it indicated a desire on the part of the committee generally to pay some special heed to the necessity of having a careful control over the expenditures; of this nation on the international front. The reason it was brought up was that we were not satisfied that the same measure of control was being exercised over expenditures on international matters as in the domestic field. The suggestion I have to make is not a critical one, nor is it offered to confound or confuse in any way the government in its policies. I offer it rather to be helpful and constructive in seeing to it that our international commitments do not run away with us. ,
Through the comptroller of the treasury we are careful to see that, to some extent at least, our domestic expenditures are guarded. We are not always sure that they are guarded sufficiently, but in any event they are guarded. In the international field we think a similar situation should exist. This country cannot afford in some instances to keep up with the international Joneses. I am not suggesting that as a nation we have done that. I do not think it would be fair on my part to make that suggestion because, generally speaking, Canada has kept closely within the confines of the commitments she is able to meet. But it is only fit and proper that the committee should at least draw to the attention of the minister the importance of having some special control exercised over international expenditures to make sure that they are kept within the limits of government policy and to the extent that the national pocketbook can afford to pay.
Supply-Treasury


Douglas Charles Abbott: The same system of control applies to these expenditures as applies to our domestic expenditures. I think my hon. friend is referring to the expenditures themselves. We make our contribution to the various international organizations, and we have been pressing for a similar control to be exercised over the expenditures of these organizations as we exercise with respect to the expenditures of our domestic departments. So far as the contributions which we make to them are concerned, these are subject to exactly the same check as any other government payment. The point which my hon. friend makes is an important one and one which the government of Canada is pressing to see put into effect.


John Bracken: The minister says that the reason for the large increase in the expenditures proposed for this year as compared with last year is that there has been an increase in "temporary assistance." Is. that temporary assistance only for the present year? Will it fee discontinued after this year, or is it the jkind of assistance which will change itself into ^permanent assistance later on?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I indicated just before my t,on. friend came into the chamber that a large part of this was for payments in connection with veterans affairs, rehabilitation grants, the Veterans Land Act, and the like. Whether they will be exhausted at the end of this year I am not in a position to say, but obviously it is a type of special expenditures which will cease at the end of a fairly limited period, and as I explained in answer to a question by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario a moment ago, that is why it is included under the heading of "temporary assistance" rather than under the heading of "permanent staff" of the department.


John Bracken: Will the minister say just a word about two details in the total of this item? One is the cost of living bonus and the other is paylist items, which is up $300,000 this year above what it was last year. The other item is postage on family allowance cheques, which is up $250,000 above last year. Will the minister explain the reasons for these two large increases?


Douglas Charles Abbott: So far as family allowance is concerned, it was in for only part of the preceding year. That, I take it, explains the difference in the postage cost under that item. Perhaps my parliamentary assistant could say a word on the cost of living bonus.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The cost of living bonus is $675,000; war duties supplement, $108,615; unemployment insurance, $45,000. I think I
[Mr. Oraydon.l
tried to explain on the first item that the numbers in here increase after the men come home but still stay on the government pay list in some way or another. Some of them are going to universities, and some of them are taking occupational training. That is one place. Also large numbers, when they are demobilized, come in on to the payroll in one form or another. Family allowances add greatly to the work, and a good deal of it is in the cheque adjustment branch. The cheque adjustment branch is a pretty heavy item, and it requires a great deal of detailed work after the cheques are issued and come back to Ottawa from the different branches, since they have to be checked to see that they are correct, that they have not been raised in any way, that the signatures are right; it involves a lot of work. The cheques which are being issued now run to 2,800,000 a month, and the hon. gentleman can understand that when these come back it takes a considerable staff to see that everything is right.


John Bracken: Just one observation
with respect to the answer given by the Acting Minister of Finance as to the increase in the postage. The estimate for last year was $500,000; the estimate for this year is $750,000, or an increase of fifty per cent. The explanation that this policy was in effect for less than a year last year would hardly account for the fifty per cent increase in the cost of postage.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think it would.


John Bracken: I would rather think there is another explanation as well. Is it not because you are in effect requiring that cheques be sent out to all people who have children coming under this legislation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The new rule applies only from 1947 on. That would not have any significant effect on the estimate. The new law with respect to everybody claiming family allowance applies only from January 1, 1947. This estimate was prepared before that matter was decided upon. As I said earlier, I think the main reason for the increase is the fact that the family allowance loan was only in force for a part of the preceding year. This is only an estimate, of course; if the money is not spent it will not be used, and it is payable to another department of government.


John Bracken: But this fiscal year
extends over three months of the next calendar year, when this new provision would be in effect.

Supply-M iscellaneous


Mr. CAMPBELL:: On page 108 of the details there is an item of $150,000 for rent of equipment. It seems to me that an increase of $110,000 is pretty considerable.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is an increase of $40,000, from $110,000 to $150,000.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Is that not a rather large item for rental of equipment? Have we not a lot of equipment under War Assets Corporation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is mostly veterans affairs and health and welfare, I am told.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: How many treasury officers are out looking after family allowances, in the different offices across Canada? We learned from the Minister of National Health and Welfare the cost of the different offices, but he would not tell us the number of treasury officers because, he said, it came under the Department of Finance.


Mr. McMASTER:: As regards getting out the cheques, I understand they have some system whereby cheques can be made out rapidly. Why do they not buy these machines?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is mechanized equipment, and I understand the manufacturers do not sell machines, but only rent them.
As regards the question of the hon. member for Peterborough West, I will see if I can get that information and give it to him later.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
78. Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1943, and Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, 1938, administration, $151,515.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I notice that there is a reduction in this item and that it is almost wholly in the matter of fees. I should like the minister to explain something about the nature of that item, and I should also like to ask this question. I understand, and it is my hope and belief, that the largely improved farm conditions, particularly in western Canada, in the last few years must have greatly cut down the work under the act, and I should like to know how much it has been cut down. I wish to form an idea as to what relatively the amount of work is as compared with two or four years ago.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I can give the hon. member the information from 1943 to 1945 in respect of each province.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And the number of applications under the act. I should like to go back starting about 1940.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That would be under the old act, before the amendment, of course.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, but I should like to find out the number of applications, because it gives a rough idea of the amount of work and to what extent it has been reduced.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I think this will give the hon. gentleman an idea of what the board is doing-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister explain to us about that matter of fees-$100,000 last year and $50,000 this year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I might say something about that, because I had something to do with the revision of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act a year ago. That simply reflects the reduced number of applications which are received by the receivers in the three western provinces. As the hon. member knows, it applies now only to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Experience last year showed that, because of improved conditions, I take it, in the western provinces and because of restrictions which were imposed under the amended act there was a diminishing number of applications, and we contemplate that for the coming year they will be still further reduced, so that we have cut in half the estimate of receivers' fees for the current fiscal year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is it correct to say that the fees are paid at the same scale, and therefore that a fifty per cent cut in the fees anticipates a fifty per cent reduction in the number of applications?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think that is about exactly right,


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then it seems to me that the reduction shown here is almost wholly an item of $50,000, and one would have hoped there might be other reductions.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are corresponding
reductions in land appraisals and reductions in filings and legal costs, postage, rents and telephone.


William Ross Macdonald: Carried?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, it is not carried. I have asked questions which have not been answered, and they are going to be answered, if possible.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The total number of cases in 1943 in Manitoba were 43, in Saskatchewan 2,414, in Alberta, 645, making a total of 3,102. The number of cases brought to conclusion by official receivers: Manitoba, nine-
Supply-M iscellaneous


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want only the totals arising in each year.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The total of cases brought to conclusion by official receivers was 464. The number of cases brought to conclusion by county and district courts was 1,997. The total number of cases disposed of was 2,461. Cases yet to be dealt with number 691; appeals taken from judgments of courts, 404; appeals allowed, 197; appeals disallowed, 117; appeals yet to be heard, or judgments pending, 90.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Could we have the figure for 1945 which would compare with the 3,102 for 1943?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I am sorry we have not that information separately, but it can be obtained and sent to the hon. member.


William Alexander McMaster: With times as good as they are in the west at the present time, and in view of the fact that this was not popular except among those who might have been considered rather poor farmers, I should think it would soon be dispensed with.


Mr. LOW:: What is the government's policy with respect to the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act? Will it be kept active?
Mr. ABBOTT':	We are making no new
grants under it. The only payments made are those flowing from commitments previously entered into.


Solon Earl Low: Will the government hold this open and ready for use when loans under it are demanded?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Obviously that is a matter of government policy which will have to be considered in due course.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Generalyjf. To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for salaries, cost of living bonus, reclassifications and increases, $100,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Is this for potential
salary increases only within the Department of Finance, or for all departments?


Douglas Charles Abbott: All through the service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
75. Unforeseen expenses expenditure thereof to be subject to approval of the treasury board and a detailed statement to be laid before parliament within fifteen days of next session, $80,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the kind of item all of us would like to have in our budgets, if we only could.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And have to.
fMr. Mayhew.]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it only for the Department of Finance or for the entire government service? What was it used for last year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As my hon. friend has said, this is an omnibus item. It covers all departments. As indicated in the item, it is to cover unforeseen contingencies in the various departments. .1 think hon. members will agree that, in view of the extent of the estimates, it is not a large item and is not out of proportion to an amount any ordinary businessman would include in his budget, if he were attempting to draw up a budget in which there were items which he could not foresee at the time the budget was being prepared. Hon. members will realize that these estimates are prepared well in advance of the time the moneys are expended.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I grant that this is a relatively small item to spend any time on. But in view of the fact that we have regular estimates, supplementary estimates, further supplementary estimates, and probably more supplementary estimates when we meet next year, I believe it is reasonable to ask the minister to give some general idea of how this vote was spent last year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The first expenditure, for instance, was in connection with the royal commission on administrative reclassifications in the public service. The amount is $2,800 for that. Then there were certain expenses in connection with the return to England of Sir Shuldham Redfern of the governor general's staff, an amount of $2,000. There were minor expenses in connection with the official government reception for General Crerar on his return from overseas. They are items of that kind, amounts which were not contemplated when the estimates were prepared. I am informed that this figure has been included in the estimates for a number of years.


Solon Earl Low: It has not all been spent, has it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Only $18,000 of the appropriation was spent last year. This amount of $80,000 has been included each year for a number of years.


Percy Chapman Black: 
Douglas Charles Abbott: The reason is very simple; it is because the agreements with the maritime provinces expire before the end of the fiscal year, which means that the obligations under those agreements will lapse, in the case of New Brunswick, on, October 31. I do not remember the dates for the other provinces.


Percy Chapman Black: Have the governments of the three maritime provinces
agreed to this reduction without any compensation for the remainder of the year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am only assuming that if they do not enter into new tax agreements they will impose their own taxes. That is the obvious answer. If they enter into new agreements, of course those agreements will be substituted for the present wartime tax agreements. If they do not, they will reimpose the taxes which they relinquished under the wartime tax agreements.


Percy Chapman Black: But the fact is that the federal government is continuing to encroach upon sources of revenue which heretofore were available to the provinces. Is it the purpose of the federal government to continue to impose the gasoline tax after the lapse of these agreements? Will it be necessary for the provinces to raise additional taxes on gasoline to those exacted by the federal government? Of course the motorists are the ones who will have to pay the double taxation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The provinces were imposing a gasoline tax before the agreements were entered into and I presume they will continue to do so. They will have revenue from the corporation tax, the personal income tax and other tax fields which they relinquished to the dominion government during the war years.


William Alexander McMaster: I have not heard any
complaint from Alberta regarding the increase, and perhaps the minister could explain that.


William Ross Macdonald: I am not sure that the question of provincial-dominion agreements can be discussed under the item before the committee, which is vote 75. It would seem to me that this discussion is not in order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just to answer my hon. friend shortly, this relates to the arrangement that was entered into with Alberta last year in connection with the refunding of their obligations which were in default. Since I did not anticipate the question I am not familiar with the details, but my hon. friends will remember that these were set out in the press at the time. The defaulted obligations were refunded and the dominion entered into a certain agreement. It was up before parliament last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Douglas Charles Abbott: I think we might let the items having to do with the wartime prices and trade board stand until we have completed the other items.
r.588
Supply-Miscellaneous

1,91,. To provide for the payment of premiums on Dominion of Canada sterling securities, $20,000.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: On many occasions during the past few weeks I handed a $10 bill to different storekeepers or to hotels or restaurants, and I did it with a purpose in mind. In many cases I was handed back all United States money and, when I said I wanted Canadian money, I was told that they had not any. Where does a Canadian citizen stand when he has to take United States money as change?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have never had the experience my hon. friend has had, and I would welcome it. This is a foreign exchange control matter, and it would come under the present foreign exchange control order, which will be followed by the Foreign Exchange Control Act. But to answer my hon. friend's question-I think there will be an amendment to the order and to the act which will permit an individual Canadian to hold, for the time being, a certain amount of United States currency without infringing the provisions of the order. He will not be permitted to export it out of the country, but if, under circumstances similar to what my hon. friend has in mind, he has to take large quantities of United States dollars, he can keep them for a time and then turn them into his. bank and get the better currency which we have here, good Canadian dollars.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This happened a week ago on the way down from Muskoka.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course that part of the country is inundated with Americans just now.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They would not take United States money from me when I had Canadian money. That was the trouble all the way down.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am delighted to hear that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Halifax area explosion and V-E day damage
[Stage Direction]
500. Administration expenses in connection with investigations, $85,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister explain this item?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This item covers the estimated payment of claims arising out of the Halifax disturbances last year. The supple-mentaries contain an additional amount to what is indicated here.


Percy Chapman Black: What will be the total expenditures in connection with the explosion and riot claims at Halifax. Item 500 commences with these words: "Halifax area explosion and V-E day damage."


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is the first time the appropriation has appeared in the estimates. There is an item of $1,800,000 for payment of claims, and in the supplementaries, on page 19, there is a further item of $650,000, or a total of $2,450,000. Did my hon. friend want to know, in addition, the amount that was voted last year?


Percy Chapman Black: I should like to know the total expenditure in connection with the claims.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Last year $4,610,118 was spent.


Percy Chapman Black: I should like at some time to get more details with respect to these disbursements. I have already asked for them, but the parliamentary assistant impressed on me that it would involve a great deal of work. Being good-natured and kindly disposed toward him, I did not press for it, but I have been pressing and still press for some statement with respect to the loss suffered, a very real loss, a loss as real as any for which compensation has been paid out of the $4,600,000 odd, by a settler in my constituency who shipped $129 worth of broilers on the 18th of July, 1945. Those broilers were delayed by the Canadian Express Company, not through any fault of the express company, but because the train was delayed owing to the explosion. I was put off by the statement that this was only a loss incidental to the explosion a "consequential loss," and this poor farmer who raised these early chickens was made the sufferer. I- am not satisfied to see an expenditure totalling over $4,600,000 and this man under those circumstances denied reimbursement of the small amount claimed. Every member of the house will agree that he suffered a real loss through this explosion. The farmer who raised these broilers was endeavouring to market them among his customers in Halifax, and they were destroyed because the train was delayed as a result of the Halifax explosion. This man's claim has not been paid. I have not yet got satisfaction. I have had some encouragement that it is still under consideration. I am satisfied for it to remain under consideration and let this vote go through but I do not want the claim to remain under consideration too long.


Ralph Melville Warren: Might I ask the hon.
member if the broilers by any chance could have any connection with the horse meat that was shipped from Cumberland county to Halifax and later was sent out to be examined somewhere in Saskatchewan?


Percy Chapman Black: If the hon. member wants the facts those were horses that

Supply-Insurance
came from Ontario. I assume no responsibility for them so far as my constituency is concerned.


Ralph Melville Warren: In Ontario we use our horses for work purposes; we do not can them.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I think the hon. member for Cumberland is entitled to a reply. He took this matter up with me last session, and at that time we were told that the claim was not allowed because the damage was consequential. That was the legal opinion of the department at that time. But just a few days ago I discussed the matter again with the departmental officials and asked them to refer the case to justice for an opinion whether it was consequential damage or not. The matter went over to justice only a few days ago, and I imagine that in their usual speedy manner they will give the hon. gentleman a reply.


Percy Chapman Black: I thank the parliamentary assistant for his efforts on behalf of this settler in my constituency, and if he will see that this claim is paid we will waive the right to interest arrears which have been accumulating over a period of years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
94. Departmental administration, $195,795.
Mr. JAENICKE:: I consider it my duty on behalf of a large number of my constituents to bring to the attention of the minister and of the committee certain questionable activities of a loan company in Winnipeg. The company to which I refer is the International Loan Company. Prior to 1921, this company was chartered under a provincial act. Then in 1921 it obtained a charter from this parliament, with an authorized capital of $20,000,000. Then they went out into the western provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta to sell their shares. The price of the shares was $100 each, but for some reason or another they added a premium of $20 to the price of the shares, so that if you bought ten shares, worth $1,000, you had to pay $1,200. The applicant for a share obligated himself to pay at least fifty per cent of the value of the share, and the other fifty per cent was to be paid through the application of dividends. The men who sold these shares went mainly amongst the farmers and, so far as my constituency is concerned, farmers of foreign extraction. In 1931 the subscribed capital of this company had reached $5,620,400. Only part of that was paid, the'remainder remaining callable. We all
know what happened after that. We had the economic depression, then years of crop failure, and of course farmers who had subscribed shares were unable to pay up when the call came. The company allowed the shares to stand until a few years ago and then started to forfeit them, shares on which a considerable amount had been paid. At the end of 1945 the subscribed capital amounted to only $1,785,800 from over $5 million in 1931. In 1945 alone, 23,214 shares were forfeited, having a par value of $2,321,400, and there had been paid on them a total of $159,151.35. I have a list of the shares.
I have taken the matter up with the superintendent of insurance and, while, he is sympathetic in connection with the forfeitures, seeing that a considerable amount of money has been paid on the shares, there is apparently nothing that he can do. The loss of capital in my constituency is considerable. Let me cite two typical cases of farmers who bought shares over twenty years ago. They were told that it was a good investment and that by the time they reached the age of seventy they would have a comfortable income besides any other revenue they might get from the shares. In one case a man paid $1,800 in cash, and dividends at the time of the forfeiture amounted to $338.45. In other words, he had an investment of over $2,100 in the company and it was wiped out a year ago. Another man paid $1,500 and his earned dividends at the time of forfeiture were over $400, so that almost $2,000 of his investment was wiped- out.
Looking over the cancellation of forfeitures in 1945-I have a list of them which I received from the superintendent of insurance-I find that there are scores of similar cases, making up a total of over $150,000 which was paid by poor people whose money has been lost through these forfeitures.
There is in Winnipeg a shareholder named George Batho, who has written an open letter on the subject and whom I had the pleasure of meeting. I told him I would mention his name. He is a retired civil servant, a shareholder in good standing. He has interested himself in the matter and spent his own money and time, and he has done a great deal of work to bring to the attention of other shareholders the deplorable conditions under which the shares were cancelled. I should like to read from this open letter which he wrote to the shareholders last month and in which he sets out some of the conditions I have mentioned:
The day in history wherein one man killed and ate his brother physically is, we hope, pretty well past and gone forever. But, in

Supply-Insurance

regard to fortunes, exactly the same trait of character is being exhibited by International Loan Company. About 25 years ago many hundreds of people responded to the suave persuasions of Doctor Argue, who had a monopoly on share selling, and they bought shares. Then some of the purchasers let their better judgment come to the rescue, and they never paid a "red cent" on the contract. About 570 of such non-payers were dropped in 1945. There was nothing whatsoever wrong with that; they should have been dropped many years earlier. But when they were dropped about 400 other persons, who together had paid to the eompany $102,932.28, as applied on paid capital, and $56,219.07, as applied on premium or $159,151.35 in all, also had their rights in the company forfeited and were left with not one cent's worth of value for all their money. It was confiscation of wealth, pure and simple-dog eat dog- big man eat little man-the wealthier ones gobbling up the less fortunate-financial cannibalism. The company really was not violating the present law of the land in doing this: but in many of the cases it was violating all ethical standards known to mankind. People who buy shares in a loan company and who cannot finish their contract ought to get at least part of the shares they have paid for. The company was solvent; it was not in distress to creditors; much of this forfeiture was just wanton confiscation, many of the forfeitures running into hundreds and even well up into thousands of dollars, where in different cases the contract was decidedly more than half completed. To the end of 1945 shareholders had paid $355.550.31 on share contracts that had been wiped out by forfeiture. This is almost 29 per cent of the present assets of the company.
This confiscation followed right on the heels of oft-repeated assurance to shareholders that their investment was secure.
Whether they are big financiers or little, the shareholders of this company should urge upon their members in the House of Commons that the Dominion Loan Companies Act in this respect should be amended.
The guiding gen;us of this company is Doctor Argue, to whom Mr. Baiho refers in his letter, and lately there has come into the scene his son-in-law Mr. Dick. Doctor Argue holds shares amounting to $40,000 paid up and Mr. Dick holds $18,000 worth, and they can do what they like through proxies. I should like to quote again from Mr. Batho's letter.
To-day, for all practical purposes, this company is tied hand and foot by Messrs. Argue and Dick through the use of proxies. Proxies are commonly used in company business, and their use seems to be quite necessary. But in every other company, or practically every other company, the proxies sought are for one meeting only; and the need for these is to facilitate the doing of business in the event of a small attendance at that meeting. But Doctor Argue and Mr. Dick use continuing proxies, the most vicious proxy yet devised, to continue their stranglehold upon the control of the company. The reports of recent annual meetings tell us that the possession of proxies was announced as follows:
Proxies Represented
1944	4,250	shares	(one share, one	vote)1945	.4,583 shares	(one share, one	vote)1946	5,768 shares	(one share, one	vote)
[Mr. Jaenicke.l
Ever since this company began Doctor Argue has assiduously gathered proxies day in and day out. At first these proxies were all for himself; then later they were made to be used by either Argue or Dick. A number of these proxies are about 20 years old; the givers of many of them doubtless have forgotten that they ever gave a proxy; some without doubt never understood the nature of the paper they signed; many of the people giving these proxies have lost touch with the company.
With the use of these proxies, having the company entirely at their disposal, these two gentlemen put through resolutions and other business of the company at their will. They entered into an ingenious contract just a few years ago with this company which gives them exclusive right to sell shares, invest the company's money, rent properties and so on, all on a commission basis and on a fixed fee basis, and as to whether or not the company is making money, these two gentlemen apparently make sure that they make money. This is what Mr. Baiho says with respect to the contract:
With all these proxies in their possession, Messrs. Argue and Dick, a few years ago, had the company issue to them a thirty-year contract as joint managers. The terms of that contract may be good or they may be bad; the point is that these two men, using continuing proxies could hire themselves on any kind of contract that did not violate the terms of the Loan Companies Act or the by-laws of the company. Even before the meeting began they knew that the contract was "in the bag."
The present proxy set-up is utterly bad and intolerable.
I would ask the minister to instruct the superintendent of insurance to look into the matter. With proper pressure being brought to bear on this company by the department, I think it could be persuaded, without a change in the law, to reinstate these shareholders who have paid such large amounts of money and whose money, being almost one-third of the total assets, has helped to make the profits and the dividends which the company has earned. I quite realize that an industrial company which assumes public obligations could not in this way have the continuing shareholders bear the liabilities which the company has, but this company never had any public liabilities. The money that these shareholders paid in, along with the money put in by the other shareholders, produced the dividends which they have earned.
I also think there is something wrong with their financial manipulations. The statement of assets and liabilities and of profits and losses which they publish and send to their shareholders differs from those which will be found on file with the department of insurance. Of course there is an explanation. The superintendent of insurance permits certain deductions to be taken from profits, and the

Supply-Insurance
company treats them in another way. In any event they make out their statement in such a way as to indicate that they are making a lot of money and in fact they are not. During the last twenty years they have only earned dividends of an average of 1-73 per cent on the capital investment.
Another suggestion I would make to the minister is that in a case like this where a company has no public liability, no shares should be forfeited unless it is with the consent of the minister or of the court.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not familiar with the particular case to which my hon. friend has referred. As suggested, I will take note of his remarks and bring them to the attention of the -superintendent of insurance. I think I should point out that the matter of dealing with the sale of shares and otherwise is something that is purely a matter of provincial jurisdiction. The superintendent of insurance is responsible, of course, for seeing that the company's reserves, or whatever they may be, are adequate to take care of its liabilities. But he is not primarily, if at all, concerned with how a company which operates in a particular province disposes of its shares.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Do I understand from the minister that any company can operate, say in Manitoba, and be permitted to sell its shares anywhere at all throughout Canada and that the federal government would have no control over it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; it would have to obtain appropriate permission from the other province in which it wished to sell its shares, to do so; but that is a matter which is purely a question of property and civil rights and comes within the jurisdiction of the provinces.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I was not complaining so much about the sale of shares as of the forfeiture of shares. The law ought to be amended so that where a company has no public liability its shares would not be forfeited. In other words, a shareholder who has paid in a certain amount, say ten or twenty per cent, should get a paid-up share for the amount of money that he has paid in.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As my hon. friend, who is an able lawyer, knows, that is purely a legal question. Most companies' acts provide a procedure whereby shares which are partly paid-up can be forfeited if the shareholder fails to pay a further call. I do not know the circumstances of the particular case to which he refers, but I shall have inquiries made. It is a legal question which would certainly require an amendment to the statute under which the company is incorporated, and that is a matter which would have to receive 63260-352}
careful consideration before such an amendment were made. Obviously nothing can be done about it at this session.


William Scottie Bryce: If a company is operating under a dominion charter would it not be subject to federal law? Some of my constituents are in this company.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If it were incorporated under a dominion charter there would be terms and conditions under which its shares could be issued; and a provision with respect to forfeiture. The charter would, of course, be determined by the dominion law, by the statute under which the company had been created.


George Hugh Castleden: There is nothing in the statutes of the dominion compelling any company without public liability to deal with those persons who are shareholders in such a way as to make it possible for the government to take action against a company or to cancel its charter or compel it to recognize the equity which shareholders have?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a pretty broad question. I do not pretend to be an expert in the particular line to which reference is made. I suggest that one of my colleagues at the bar might suitably earn a well-deserved fee by advising on the matter which we are discussing.


George Hugh Castleden: I am sure they will be glad to hear about it, but these people have not the money to hire these lawyers. It seems to me that justice would be done if there were regulations which prevented this kind of thing. If it is legal, then certainly we have an open form of legalized robbery. I think it should be stopped.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is not a matter about which the superintendent of insurance can do anything, and that is the particular item that we are discussing at the moment.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: In cases of this kind one gets tired of some people always saying someone has been robbed. People of foreign extraction come here, and they do not buy stock in any corporation unless they have the idea that they are going to make a lot of money out of it. They take an option on certain shares of a stock in a company. The directors who are running corporations of this kind have a great difficulty in repeatedly asking these people to contribute the remainder of their subscription. The millions are not forthcoming to these people of foreign extraction. They do not see fit to answer the correspondence which they receive from
Supply-Wartime Prices Board

head office. The people who run these corporations give these people plenty of warning. If these companies are not run on a sound business basis these people lose their money. They deserve to lose their money. If you take an option to buy a piece of furniture from the T. Eaton Company or a piece of property from some other company, and you do not see fit to go ahead with your contract and lose your money, that is your business. Why we should appeal to the government, and try to make it a collection agency for these people who do not want to carry out their contract, is something I do not understand. I do not see why we should waste our time talking about it.


William Scottie Bryce: I should like the hon. member who has just taken his seat to understand that the constituents whom I represent are not of foreign extraction. They are Canadians.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
vVartime prices and trade board-
^88. Administration, $11,575,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Finance if he will make a statement to the committee at this time with reference to the situation in connection with the price of milk. I am not going to go into the matter in detail, because it was pretty thoroughly debated the other morning on the motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair. The minister and the other members of the government are fully aware of the stand taken by the house. I think it was one of the most significant recorded votes that we have had for a good many years. All members in all parties were given complete freedom to vote as they wishe'd. All pairing was off, and the result of the vote was quite decisive. As I recall it, it was sixty-nine to forty-one in favour of consideration being given to the continuance of the milk subsidy so that adequate returns might be had by the producers and the price of milk to the consumer might be kept down. It is regrettable that the number of members present for the vote was so small; but in spite of that, it is significant to note that the number of government supporters who voted for the motion was so large that, had the entire house been present, the vote would still have been in the affirmative. A good deal of interest was created in the country because of the vote. The interest was already there, because milk is so important in every home. Now that parliament has expressed itself most decisively, the country is anxious to know just what is going to happen. Will the government carry out the wishes of

this house? The time for the proposed discontinuance of the milk subsidy is not far off. I realize also that there has not been a great deal of time since the vote was taken the other morning, but I hope that the Acting Minister of Finance is now able to make some statement as to what we may expect from the government in this connection.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, I can make a brief statement on that, and make it promptly. In accordance with the resolution passed by the house the other day, the government will consider the question of continuing this milk subsidy, but I want to make it perfectly clear that this does not necessarily mean that the policy will be changed. Another point I want to make clear is that the subsidy is fifty-five cents for about forty quarts, so that when we hear in the newspapers talk that the price of milk may go up two or three cents a quart if the subsidy is not continued, a very simple exercise in mathematics will indicate that even if the subsidy is continued it will not prevent any such rise as is intimated there, because the subsidy is only equivalent to a little over one cent per quart. But as I said, in accordance with the resolution of the house the question will be considered, and I also repeat that that must not be taken necessarily as an indication that the policy will be changed.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to ask the minister concerning the details of this on page 262. There is $600,000 for advertising and $600,000 for printing. I should like to have details.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The details will be available in a moment. My hon. friend will see from the details on page 262 of the estimates that there is a substantial reduction from the previous fiscal year. In the case of printing the amount is down from $1,000,000 to $600,-
000.	In the case of advertising the reduction is from $1,750,000 to $600,000. We shall get the breakdown in a minute.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: While the minister's officials are getting the breakdown, will the minister tell me why postage is up some $60,000 while everything else is down?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that we can give a completely satisfactory explanation as to that. The actual expenditure last year was $236,000. I am told by officers of the board that, with the rather rapid change in policy; with certain controls being released and certain changes made, the volume of

Supply-Wartime Prices Board
correspondence, particularly with district offices and the public, has increased substantially over the last few months, and therefore it was felt that perhaps it would be wise to increase the estimates for postage to some extent. But, as I said in connection with a similar estimate in another department, it is an estimate. If the money for postage is not spent, why-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We wTon't give the stamps away.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Precisely; as the hon.
member for Muskoka-Ontario says, we won't give the stamps away. I am afraid that is about as detailed an explanation as I can give of the estimate of the increase in postage. I admit it does seem unusual that, where other items are substantially reduced, the postage item should be up.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When the minister gives
me the details of advertising I want them with reference to radio, the film board, the newspapers and the magazines.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Hon. members may say,
"oh, oh". This is the last of the session, and this is being rushed through, but there is no reason why we should not have the details.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Here, again, it is an estimate. I can give my hon. friend the breakdown of the advertising costs for last year, which perhaps would be of some assistance in connection with the estimate for this year: radio serials, programmes of that type cost $326,000; farmers' bulletins, $81,000; advertising in connection with the emergency shelters, which is, of course, self-explanatory, $117,000; sugar services, $135,000; and meat rationing, $121,000; making a total of $780,000. Under "printing" the main cost is in connection with ration books, as the committee will appreciate. On that item last year substantial savings were achieved. Ration book No. 1 cost $173,228.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think that information has been given.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Has that been given before?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That has been given in the papers.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That, I may say, is the important item of expenditure under the heading of printing costs. I hope that this year the cost of ration books will be substantially reduced.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister gave the figures for radio last year. What is the amount this year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is included in the lump appropriation. I do not know that there is a specific breakdown for radio. The total appropriation for all types of advertising and radio is, as the committee will see, $600,000, and out of that appropriation will have to come all forms of publicity and information to the public, whether it takes the form of newspaper advertising, radio, circulars and the like.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister did not give the film board costs for last year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will see if I have that. Miscellaneous films, $48,678.94.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What is it this year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no specific appropriation; no allotment at all. If it were utilized it would have to come out of this $600,000.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have another question which I should like to ask. In a release dated August 27 appears this statement:
Women's and misses' suits and coats
As a result of wage rate increases approved by the Quebec regional war labour board, the prices board has authorized an adjustment in manufacturers' prices for women's and misses' coats and suits for a number of manufacturers in Quebec.
What about Ontario and the other provinces? Are they affected on the price, too?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a question concerning which I shall have to get the information,, and give it to the hon. member.


Mr. LENNARD:: It is sweat-shop work; that is all.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It may be that the wage scale was lower in Quebec than it is in Peterborough.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We have well satisfied and excellent workers in Peterborough.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sure you have.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Last winter, not only in Peterborough, but in a number of cities across Canada children between the ages of six and twelve years were unable to attend school owing to the fact that they could not obtain from any of the stores long stockings to wear to school. Was that because of price, or why were they not able to get them? Why are they not on the market? To-day the Acting Minister of Finance can go into any store down on Spark - street and try to buy a pair of socks for himself, and he will find them very hard to get.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know that. The answer- and my hon. friend knows it as well as I do- is that it is the aftermath of an expensive and disrupting war. This country, in common with
Supply-Wartime Prices Board

a great many other countries, is going through a period of shortages in many essential things. We hope that if people will get together and exercise moderation, as I said in other places, and do their fair share of work, that we shall overcome these shortages.
The condition to which the hon. member refers is not peculiar to Canada. As a matter of fact I believe that in that respect we are a bit better off than in some other countries. But it is perfectly true that I cannot buy shirts when I try to. I do not know so much about children's and misses' dresses, but I know that every effort is being made to overcome these shortages as quickly as possible. That is one of the great problems facing the prices board in trying to ensure a reasonable supply of essential goods. I agree with the hon. member that that type of clothing should have top priority.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This release, which refers to an increase in price, it seems to me supplies the answer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In cases in which you authorize an increase in price, you cannot expect people to produce below cost. They will not * do that. If a wage increase has been authorized it is pretty evident that if goods are to be produced people must pay the prices. 'That is the answer to that.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Could the minister tell us the amount involved in both consumer and producer milk subsidies last year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not the exact figure here, but I know the consumer subsidy was greater than the producer subsidy. The consumer subsidy was in the vicinity of $21 million. The producer subsidy was paid by the Department of Agriculture and, although I cannot make a positive statement, I think it was about $14 million or $15 million.


Clarence Gillis: I wish to follow up for a moment what was said by the hon. member for Peterborough West. The release states definitely that the reason for the increase in the cost of women's and misses' coats was the wage increase recently granted in the industry. I think that is a misleading statement.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Well, it is right there, in the document.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, I know it is. It is obviously intended for one purpose, namely, to throw the onus of responsibility on the workers in the plant. Because there is a dollar or two added to the price of women's coats, that increase in the price of the coat in Quebec is not confined to Quebec alone. That coat is probably sold throughout Canada.

Does the wartime prices and trade board, when permitting an increase in the price of any commodity under its jurisdiction, make an examination of the cost factor involved, as to the position of the industry in question and as to whether the increase in price is warranted or otherwise?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Invariably.


Clarence Gillis: That was not done in the case of the increase in the price of basic steel.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes it was.


Clarence Gillis: And that was proven conclusively by Mr. Gordon himself.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was not poven by Mr Gordon, or by anybody else.


Clarence Gillis: It was proven in the industrial relations committee, of which I attended every session, the minister being there on only one occasion. I would advise him to check Mr. Gordon's evidence-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have.


Clarence Gillis: -before the committee, because he stated quite distinctly that he did not make an audit. He accepted the statement of the company's auditors, and in my opinion that is no indication. I say that because a telegram was received from the cost accounting department of the Steel Company of Canada, from one of their trusted employees, who had checked costs and compared figures, which were in conflict with the figures presented to the committee by Mr. Hilton, the president of the company.
My point is that if the taxpayers of Canada are to maintain an organization costing the amount of money the minister is asking the committee to vote, then I think, before prices are changed, a check should be made. I am convinced of one thing, that a lot of our difficulty to-day in industry lies in the fact that price ceilings were not maintained, that they were thrown to one side indiscriminately without any check as to whether there was any justification for price increases. I am convinced of that.
I believe the minister should now be a'4** to answer specifically as to whether the price increase mentioned by the hon. member for Peterborough was checked, so as to ascertain whether it was justified.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The answer is yes.


Clarence Gillis: Because this is one time where a specific case is being brought to our attention. If one checks back on everything he buys to eat and wear to-day he finds the same

Supply-Wartime Prices Board
relaxation of controls and increases in prices all along the line-in clothing, in hats and in other commodities that were produced four or five years ago, and where no cost factor was involved. But those price increases have been granted, and the consumer is being taken for a ride.
If we are to have price controls-and I believe in them-then I am accusing the government, and will continue to do so, of taking controls off much too quickly; because, if there ever was a time when we needed them, it was during the transition from war to peace. If we are to have price controls, then let us have them. Let us have them honestly; let us have them applied realistically, and have examinations made as to whether there is justification for price increases. I do not think any of these price increases, right along the line, from basic commodities right up to these coats for women and young girls, could have been justified if proper examinations had been made. I do not think we should continue to fool ourselves.


Angus MacInnis: 
Douglas Charles Abbott: He had done so long before that.


Angus MacInnis: In any event the committee never got the report of the chartered accountants after they had gone into the plant following receipt of the telegram. That is one point I want to make. I have a letter from the same man. It is not confidential, and he states that a copy has been sent to the leader of each party in the house. I am going to read briefly from the letter. If any credence at all can be placed in it I think it supports the position I took in this house two or three months ago, that there should be public hearings before price increases are granted. We cannot allow representatives of companies to meet with officials of the government, no matter how trusted those officials may be, in private and then say that the information upon which the price increase was granted is confidential and cannot be made public. This man says:
Mr. Donald Gordon, chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, accepted the company's selection of facts-apparently without taking the precaution of indirectly contacting individuals acquainted with the costs which might be properly applied against a given period. I realize that Mr. Gordon is greatly overworked and has difficulty in finding and retaining competent men who neither own a business of their own nor plan to return to their previous employment in a particular industry. Nevertheless, I conceive it to be his duty to provide for brief public hearings before granting price increases or subsidies. It is beyond my comprehension that either the Steel Company of Canada Limited or the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board should be permitted to consider "confidential" any data so vitally affecting the cost of living of the Canadian people. Possibly I should add that public hearings in Hamilton would certainly have revealed that:
1.	The Steel Company of Canada Limited was incurring out of pocket losses on some products and was therefore entitled to substantial price increases on such items.
2.	Had these specific increases been granted, a general increase of $2-rather than $5-per ingot ton would have been quite adequate on all products of which the Steel Company of Canada Limited is the sole or principal producer.
3.	The basic steel producers in Canada prefer to manufacture at a loss rather than allot unpopular sizes among themselves (with govern-
Supply-Wartime Prices Board

ment cooperation if necessary) so that each could make a profit on the cumulative demand for most of his allotted sizes.
From the bluntness of my remarks, you may have received the impression that I am a member of some radical group. Nothing could be farther from the truth, as I usually vote for the Liberal party.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Is that the letter to Mr. Gordon?


Angus MacInnis: No, the letter to Mr. Gordon is attached, one of the numerous letters to Mr. Gordon, I believe.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The letter to Mr. Gordon was shown to me immediately it was received.


Angus MacInnis: I am not going to quote from the letter to Mr. Gordon.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was along the same line.
Mr, MacINNIS: It is attached to this one. I submit that it is only a matter of prudence for the administration, before an agency of this government grants price increases that affect the whole economy of this country in the way that these price increases have affected it, first to hold public hearings. I hope the government and the wartime prices and trade board will take note of this and see that such procedure is followed in the future if and when further price increases are asked for.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I take it that letter is from Mr. Weber.


Angus MacInnis: That is correct.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Weber wrote to the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board a month or two ago along the lines indicated in the letter which my hon. friend has read. I cannot say just when, but Mr. Gordon came to me and showed me the letter immediately it had been received. We came to the conclusion that if the charges in the letter were well founded they were most serious. With my authorization, the chairman of the prices and trade board retained Mr. Walter Gordon of Clarkson, Gordon and Company of Toronto, to investigate the matter. Mr. Gordon went there and he had ample time to do so. I do not know whether his investigation was completed at the time the industrial relations committee was sitting, but it is now and I am advised-I have not seen his report-that his report is that without qualification there is no foundation in the charges made in the letter to which my hon. friend refers.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We are dealing here with a vote of some $11,000,000. As a matter of interest I was comparing it with the vote for the Department of Fisheries and I find it is a great deal larger. It seems to me that we should have

a general statement from the acting minister with regard to this large enterprise which we are carrying on and on which we are spending $11,000,000. Various detailed questions have been asked and answered, but I suggest that we ought to have a brief general statement, without going into detail, of what has been accomplished, what controls have been abandoned, what controls are still being preserved and what is the objective that is guiding the board at the present time.
As I say, I realize that the minister cannot go into a lot of detail, but it seems to me that, when we are carrying on a business at the expense of $11,000,000, some attempt should be made to give us a picture of that business, to show us what is being attempted, what has been accomplished and what still remains to be done.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The most recent comprehensive statement was made by the Minister of Finance on July 5 and will be found at page 3180 of Hansard. There is very little that I can add to-day to that statement. In addition, there is the report of the wartime prices and trade board covering the period from January 1 to December 31, 1945, and including important developments up to March 1, 1946. That report contains the general outline of the policy during that period and an indication of the policy for the future. There is nothing I can add to the carefully considered and comprehensive statement made by the minister five or six weeks ago.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I suggest that there have been certain important changes since that time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There really have been no changes because the minister's statement followed the change in the exchange rate between Canada and the United States and it followed the cessation of OPA in the United States. The minister indicated in considerable detail at that time the changes which were being made in our price control and economic stabilization policy to meet that situation. I could repeat what he said, but I am sure that is not what my hon. friend has in his mind. There is nothing I can add to what the minister set forth in his statement on July 5. The committee will recall that the question was fully debated on the want of confidence motion regarding agricultural implements. So that between those two debates I think the committee has a pretty comprehensive statement of government policy and intentions with respect to economic stabilization.


Angus MacInnis: The Acting Minister of Finance said that the special firm of auditors

Supply-Wartime Prices Board
which had investigated the claims made by Mr. Weber of the Steel Company of Canada had made a report. Would the minister table it or furnish to the committee a copy of the facts contained in the report? It is not sufficient to say now that the report found that the contentions made by Mr, Weber were not well founded. I think we should have the report or the information contained in it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I had not expected that this matter would be brough up. I can get the report. It may take me half an hour to get it. Then I would have to consider whether it was appropriate to ta' le it. Offhand I do not see any objection to tabling it. I will send for it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the minister make a statement regarding the supply of two necessary household commodities, soap and [DOT]alt?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The shortage of salt is a straight strike proposition, which has resulted in a stoppage of production. I have a statement here on oils and fats, which are related to soap.
It reads:
The world shortage of oils and fats is one of the most difficult supply problems we have to face. For a great many years Canada has been far from self-sufficient particularly in respect of vegetable oils. We are normally very large importers of vegetable oils and considerable importers of certain types of animal fats especially inedible tallow.
The current short position in Canada is due in part to reduced supplies of vegetable oils in foreign countries and in part to a decline in available lard produced in Canada. During the war years the serious reduction in vegetable oils was almost fully offset by increased lard production from Canadian hogs. During the past year we have had to face further declines in supplies of imported oils and at the same time a reduction in domestically produced lard.
The available world supplies of oils and fats are allocated by the international emergency food council. Canada has been allocated its fair share but during recent months there have been serious difficulties in the physical procurement of the allocated supplies. We believe that we are now in the midst of the most difficult period and we are hopeful that we can look forward to a moderate but steady improvement within the next two or three months. The wartime prices and trade board has taken a variety of measures to ease the impact of these shortages. It has allocated lard and shortening to bakers and other industrial users on the basis of 80 per cent of 1941 usage; it has encouraged the maximum diversion of suitable fats and oils to edible uses; through its compulsory de-fatting of carcasses order it has saved many millions of pounds of animal fats at the source, a high proportion of which would probably have gone to waste had it remained on the carcass through
to the retail butcher and the final consumer; it has placed temporary limitations on the quantity of fats used in the production of soap.
The current shortage of soap is also due in part to shortages of caustic soda, the supply of which has been seriously diminished by reason of industrial disputes.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Is any collection of fats being carried on as was done some time ago, or has that been discontinued?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That was done under
national war services. That has lapsed, but the de-fatting order to which I referred has largely taken up the slack.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: What about the household fats that accumulate in kitchens; is that not being used? It is not being collected now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It can be re-used by the housewife, of course, but no attempt has been made to collect that source of fat.


Mr NICHOLSON:: I think the committee
are not very well satisfied with the minister's statement regarding milk. A little earlier he made reference to OPA in the United States. While I agree that, on the whole, the performance of our wartime prices and trade board is better than that of OPA I noticed in the Ottawa Journal of August 28, yesterday, a dispatch from New York saying that:
Paul A. Porter, office of price administration administrator, said to-day ue would insist on restoring ceiling prices in the United States for fluid milk and dairy products. He said he would ask for the ceiling price of June 30, with subsidies for fluid milk.
I submit that if in the United States they are taking that step with respect to fluid milk, the Canadian government might very well
reconsider its decision to discontinue the producer subsidy on fluid milk.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is nothing in that. Their price of milk in the United States is seventeen to nineteen cents. The pricing of milk in Canada was turned back on June 1 to the provincial milk boards, which are free to impose any ceiling they see fit.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It is not being turned over to the state authorities in the United States. The federal government there is taking the responsibility of seeing that the consumer will not pay more.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In Canada we have the provincial milk boards. I do not think they have that in the United States. Our provincial milk boards are the best machinery to control the price of milk.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That was not the policy during the war. It was considered the responsibility of the federal government so that the cost of living might be kept down.
Supply-Wartime Prices Board


Douglas Charles Abbott: With the abandonment of the consumer subsidy and the proposed abandonment of the producer subsidy, the control of the price of milk has been returned to the provincial milk boards.


Mr. DROPE:: Would the minister say something further about the shortage of salt, which is getting worse and seriously affecting our cheese and creamery production. If something is not done to get a supply of salt, many of our cheese factories and creameries will be up against it to continue production. Would it not be possible to have salt imported from the United States to tide us over this shortage period?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that salt is pretty scarce in the United States. The shortage in Canada is entirely due to the industrial dispute in the C.I.L. plant at Windsor. If that can be settled the supply of salt will be increased.


Robert Earle Drope: It is reported to me that many cheese factories are having to grind up rock salt to put in cheese, which is not good for the quality of our cheese. Something should be done to relieve the shortage, which is most serious.


Clarence Gillis: I hate to bother the minister but he is tangled up with the most important agency in Canada, so that we have no alternative. I should like to know if any action has been taken by the wartime prices and trade board to remedy a serious defect which has become apparent in its machinery since its establishment. There should be greater cooperation or liaison between the wartime prices and trade board and the national war labour board, which fixes wages. There was a good deal of criticism in the industrial relations committee because of lack of coordination. While Mr. Gordon clearly stated that it was not the job of the wartime prices and trade board to fix wages, and there was no actual representative from the war labour board on his board, except the deputy Minister of labour, who sits in as an observer-


Douglas Charles Abbott: He is a member of the board.


Clarence Gillis: Well, in reality the wartime prices and trade board do fix wages. They set prices and ceilings beyond which wages cannot go, and in that way they definitely rule in the field of wages as in prices. Theoretically they may not, but practically they do. Perhaps many of the difficulties in the field of industrial unrest might have been avoided if there were some understanding and if an official representative of the wartime

prices, and trade board and the war labour board sat in and did one job. The committee, when they presented their report to the house, definitely recommended that there should be closer cooperation and some official contact. Has anything been done to implement that recommendation? I think the time has come when we should be perfecting that machinery.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can only answer by saying I am convinced that there is the closest liaison and cooperation between the two departments of government. There is a certain inconsistency in the hon. gentleman's remarks, because it seems to me, though I may be wrong, that onfy a month or so ago he was saying that it was not necessary to raise prices if wages were raised; that a wage rise did not necessarily mean an increase in prices.


Clarence Gillis: I will not allow the minister to get away with that, because there was never any such statement on my part. What I did say was that an increase in wages did not necessarily mean an increase in prices or an increase in factory cost, because I actually put figures on the record from the Hamilton Steel Company to show why wages had gone up over 40 per cent, but the cost had come down proportionately as a result of increased productivity. That was true in that particular industry. I realize that it cannot happen in all, but the blanket statement attributed to me by the minister is not in accordance with the facts.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not suggest anything that could be taken as a blanket statement, but my hon. friend indicated pretty generally that a wage increase did not necessarily mean a price increase.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before the item carries, I want to put something on the record. On August 28, 1939 I wired from Riviere du Loup to the Prime Minister as follows:
War profiteers taking advantage of war scare ' to exploit people by raising price of necessary commodities of life sugar 45 cents flour 40 cents per bag in a few days stop It is a shame stop Please take means to stop it very urgent. Jean Francois Pouliot.
Release to
Canadian Press, Mr. Flaherty-Ottawa.
Two days later, on August 30, I received the following wire from the Prime Minister:
Jean Francois Pouliot Riviere du Loup, Q.
Situation described in your telegram of yesterday will be given immediate attention of the government.
W. L. Mackenzie King.
I put these on the record because, while I have been responsible to a certain extent for

Supply-Wartime Prices Board
the creation of the wartime prices and trade board, I would not take the whole responsibility for it and for what it has done since its establishment, and I hope that the members of the board will do something other than try to justify their action when they refuse a reasonable request made by any member of parliament. We have an advantage over the members of the board in the fact that we live among the people and are in contact with them, and therefore we ask for a redress of their wrongs. I have a word to say in praise of Mr. Gordon for having closed the office in Cabano in my district. I prefer to have none than to have such trouble with a man who was making difficulty for all the good people who live there. I do not have so much to complain about the board in these later times, but I hope that when representations are made by any member of parliament we shall not speak to deaf ears.


George Alexander Cruickshank: One question. Is it reasonable to presume that the minister is in favour of the continuation of the subsidy for milk in order to keep the cost of living down?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a matter which will be considered by the government, as I indicated earlier in the evening, and perhaps it would be improper for me as one member of the government to indicate my own views until the decision of the government as a whole is announced.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think the minister is going to do his best.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would not draw too hasty a conclusion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
489. Commodity prices stabilization corporation, $90,000,000.
Mr.' MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario): Will the minister say a word about this? Unless there is a statement covering the situation, this seems tremendously important. It does not seem to cover the whole subsidy situation. I would suggest that we ought to have the subsidy picture, and I will ask the minister to deal with the question in a comprehensive way.
Douglas Charles Abbott: I will ask the parliamentary assistant to give the detailed estimates.
To answer the latter part of the question, this does cover all subsidies with the exception of producer subsidies which may be paid in the Department of Agriculture and which have been covered, if any, in the estimates of thit department. For instance, there is the producer milk subsidy, the one we have been
discussing this evening. It is paid by the Department of Agriculture and provided for in the agriculture estimates.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But may I not ask the Department of Finance, which is the father and mother of all these things, to give us a complete picture of all our subsidies so that we may know what we are doing. This is an important part of our life. The impression sometimes gets abroad, I think, that in some mysterious way subsidies do not come out of our pockets, and therefore, it would be well to get the complete picture if we can.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: These are the estimates of the subsidies for the current fiscal year:
Coal and coke	 $4,000,000
Fruits and vegetables, canned and
dried	 500,000
Iron	 1,500,000
Milk consumers	 6,600,000
Oils and fats	 2,400,000
Rubber	 900,000
Wood fuel	i	 2,500,000
Woodenware and wooden containers 500,000 Miscellaneous	 2,700,000
Then we have the trading losses:
Cocoa beans	 $ 500,000
Coffee	   4,000,000
Cotton yarn and fabrics	 2,000,000
Dried fruit	 3,000,000
Oils and fats	 7,000,000
Tea	 800,000
Wool and wool products	 4.000,000
Miscellaneous	   1,000,000


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does that total $90 million?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Import subsidies


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do the items that the parliamentary assistant has read total $90,000,000?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I left out Wartime Food Corporation Limited, $100,000; administration expenses, $1,200,000; making a total of $90,000,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where do oranges and other citrus fruits come in, in this total?


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are not subsidized; other citrus fruits are not subsidized.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In connection with the firms that have been paid subsidies, would the parliamentary assistant indicate whether they came within the excess profits tax category at the same time? In other words, is the financial position of a corporation considered before a subsidy is granted? If a corporation was in the excess profits tax category, was a subsidy paid?
Supply-Wartime Prices Board


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We have profit control of most industries, but not on the import subsidies.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It would appear to me that, before a company became eligible to draw from the public exchequer, it should be necessary that information be submitted that the firm really required these payments before any subsidies were granted. The statement of the parliamentary assistant does not seem to me to be satisfactory.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have a question along the same line. How are these subsidies arrived at? Take the instance of coffee. It would seem to me that coffee would not be classed as a necessity; it could almost be looked upon as a luxury.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We take a bulk trading loss on coffee. I do not know what the view of the committee is, but I do not think one can look on coffee as a luxury. I suppose 999 people out of 1,000 in the country have coffee or tea for breakfast every morning. It is just as much a part of their diet as bread is. These items are considered as being items in the ordinary average man's diet, and are not luxury items. [DOT] So far as I know, there are no subsidies on items which can be classified as luxury items.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: When a firm makes an application for a subsidy it would appear to me to be reasonable that the company should submit evidence that it could not operate and make a profit without it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It does that in order to get an import subsidy. The subsidy is granted in order to obtain supply, not to help the individual importer, but to enable the product to be sold under the domestic ceiling. That is the purpose of the import subsidy. When an importer applies for a subsidy he must show that, without the subsidy, he cannot sell under the ceiling.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Subsidies were paid not only on goods imported but on domestic goods.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, but in these cases, as the parliamentary assistant indicated, in most industries there is profit control. In the case of the flour subsidy, for instance, there is profit control, and in others. These are the domestic subsidies, but there is a system of profit control. If the person in receipt of the subsidy is in the 100 per cent bracket, to use a common phrase, then he does not receive the full subsidy. There is a profit control imposed, so that he will not receive the subsidy and at the

same time retain the twenty per cent refundable portion of his tax. That has been rigorously enforced.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Will the minister indicate whether that has been followed throughout all the operations of the wartime prices and trade board? If a firm was in the category of an excess profits tax firm no subsidy would be paid on the operation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that I can say it is followed in all cases. I am advised that it is followed in the majority of cases.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: .This is a matter of government policy, and it should be quite clear. If a firm was in the position where it was doing a better business than it had done in the basic period it would not seem to me to be in a position where it would require any subsidy.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As I say, it is done in the majority of cases, but in some cases a firm was just not interested. It would say, we will not do business in this commodity; we have lots of others in which we can do business; let somebody else do the business. If it is an important factor in the distributing system we have to take action. In the vast majority of cases, in the cases which really count, that has been the policy which has been followed. In a good many cases the firms have not been too keen on it. They feel it is not fair. Nevertheless we have succeeded in establishing on the domestic subsidies a pretty comprehensive system of profit control and it has worked very well.


Clarence Gillis: With regard to this $2,700,000 for the wood fuel industry, has the parliamentary assistant a breakdown province by province? How much wood wras purchased under that subsidy arrangement?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sorry to say we hate not a breakdown of that item. The subsidy is paid by the commodity prices stabilization board, an agency of the board. This is where the vote is, but it is actually administered by the Department of Reconstruction, and in past years, as my hon. friend probably knows, it was administered by the Department of Munitions and Supply because the fuel controller is in that department.


Clarence Gillis: It is not paid to the producer? That is what I am thinking of.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Clarence Gillis: It is paid to the agency that sells it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I believe that is correct.
' Mr. GILLIS: Can the minister obtain the figures province by province and place them on Hansard?

Supply-Wartime Prices Board


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think the Department of Reconstruction and Supply can supply them. I shall ask my colleague, the Minister of Reconstruction, to get the figures. I would hope that it might take a little longer than we are likely to be sitting here this session, but in any event we shall do the best we can.


William Alexander McMaster: Surely a subsidy on coffee would be so much a pound, or so much a hundred pounds. I cannot understand why it is given to anybody because they made a lot of money or did not.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a trading loss; it is not a subsidy. The corporation imports the coffee in bulk and sees that it is made available to be sold at ceiling prices. The trading loss on the coffee represents what would be the subsidy had it been paid pound by pound, but this is a more 'efficient and cheaper way of keeping down the cost of coffee than to pay a subsidy of so much per pound.


William Alexander McMaster: It amounts to the same thing; everybody is treated in the same way.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; it may vary. To-day the corporation may be able to make a large purchase of coffee at the market price, but that particular purchase may be sold at the ceiling price without any loss at all. On the other hand, it may be necessary to take a loss on other purchases.


William Alexander McMaster: Will the fact that
exchange is now at par make a considerable difference in favour of the finance department?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would think it would be very helpful, yes. It is bound to be.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thought I had this clear in my mind, but the last remark of the minister has me fogged again. He spoke about a trading loss. First of all, I thought the agency referred to was the corporations themselves.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is correct?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then the minister spoke about paying so much to the individual importer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; the government imports coffee and some wool, pays for these things and makes them available to the trade to be sold at ceiling prices. In most cases that results in a trading loss. That is the point I am trying to make clear.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
1/90. Advances to Canadian wheat board for payments to millers and other manufacturers of wheat products, $18,000,000.
Mr. McKAY:: What is the nature of these advances to manufacturers of wheat products?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is the subsidizing down to 77$ cents from $125.


Eric Bowness McKay: The first part of that item has to do with the payments to millers, does it not? I am referring now to the manufacturers.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This represents the payments to the millers. The subsidy is down from $1.25 to 77$ cents, and all these payments are subject to profit control, which was referred to by the hon. member for Mackenzie.


George Hugh Castleden: How many bushels would that represent? The difference between the 77$ cents and $1.25 is roughly 47 cents, and the total amount is about $18,000,000. That would be about thirty million bushels.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It depends on the consumption. It is a mathematical problem, and an estimate. It covers all domestic uses-bread, cereals and so on.


George Hugh Castleden: The wheat board provides $125 for wheat milled in Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right. The sub'idy to the miller is down to 77$, and that is subject to profit control.


George Hugh Castleden: That makes up for the difference, because this would mean that we use only 38,000,000 bushels in Canada. Our home consumption is about 60,000,000 bushels.


Eric Bowness McKay: Is the advance to the millers identical with the advance to cereal producers?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, the same.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Robert Wellington Mayhew: Before we leave, I promised the hon. member for Davenport to answer a question on rentals. It is a lengthy statement, and I am going to ask if I may put it on Hansard.


William Ross Macdonald: Is it agreed?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
(The statement is as follows:)
Rental Regulations-Eviction Control.
The rental regulations have given some degree of security to tenants ever since rent control was first introduced. Until the summer of 1945 the landlord who wanted to occupy his own house could do so provided that he gave the tenant adequate notice. The regulations were changed from time to time, the length of notice varying from six to twelve months. Without this protection many landlords might have 1 aken advantage of the
Supply-Wartime Prices Board

shortage of housing to demand higher-than-ceiling rents on pain of immediate eviction. At the same time this protection prevented or minimized the inconvenience and suffering that would have been caused by virtue of the housing shortage.
During 1945 the shortage of housing became progressively more serious. Dwellings which were occupied by tenants were being sold in large numbers for early occupancy by the purchasers. At that time the purchaser could obtain possession of the house if it was needed for himself or for some member of his family 3n giving six months' notice to vacate. Tenants who had been served notice to vacate felt themselves compelled, in many cases, to purchase houses and, in turn, to serve notice to vacate on the tenants of these houses. By the early summer of 1945 the prospect of widespread evictions throughout the urban areas of Canada had created a serious social problem. In the city of Toronto alone, for example, there were some 3,500 notices to vacate maturing in the three summer months. Many of these notices to vacate had been served upon families or dependents of veterans. There was no alternative accommodation for the many thousands of people involved across Canada. Consequently, the Government - instructed the Prices Board to enlarge the existing system of tenant protection. This was done by Order 537, which imposed an indefinite "freeze" upon all tenants. At the same time, all outstanding notices to vacate were suspended.
In order to be fair, those purchasers or landlords who had given the tenants the proper notice to vacate were permitted to go before a court of rental appeals for a hearing. The decisions of the appeal judges in thes cases were based upon an assessment of the relative burden of hardship involved as between landlord and tenant. The one other exception to this indefinite "freeze" related to discharged service personnel.
The government recognizes that, in freezing virtually all leases relating to self-contained accommodation, it has drastically interfered with the normal rights of the property owner. This action is justified as an emergency measure designed to avoid far greater dislocation and social distress. Notwithstanding the many individual cases that can be shown to exist where the regulation works great hardship on a man who had purchased a home for the occupation of himself and his family, the situation would be far more desperate if the regulation did not exist. If this regulation were not in force to-day, it would be found that the turnover in houses would be enormously greater, tens of thousands of families would be under threat of eviction, and virtually every tenant family would feel itself insecure. At the same time, the enforcement of rental ceilings would be impossible, in many cases, if landlords were free to give notice to vacate to their tenants, or to threaten to give such notice. It is the extreme housing shortage which has created this situation, and nothing short of a considerable increase in the supply of housing will make it possible to relax this extra-contractual system of tenant protection.
The government is aware that some people have bought houses since order 537 was issued in ignorance of the fact that they could not obtain possession for occupancy. There have been cases where the sellers or the agents concerned have refrained from advising the pur-
[The Chairman.]
chaser of this condition. The government has done everything it can to acquaint the people with the existence of this regulation and cannot be expected to rectify situations of this kind in favour of the purchaser without nullifying completely the purpose of the regulation. It should be noted that, while order 537 sometimes operates	to	make it	impossible	for a
veteran to move into a house which he has purchased in recent years, a much greater number of veterans and veterans' families are protected, as tenants, by the regulation in question.
Special provisions relating to veterans.
The "freeze''	in	question	(order 537) doesnot apply in certain cases where veterans are involved. Under order 511, passed May 14, 1945, where a	veteran (or	his wife)	owneda dwelling at	the	date of	enlistment,	he is
entitled to obtain possession of the property for his own occupation on giving the tenant a specified notice, which is never less than three months. The other exception in favour of veterans relates to the case where the accommodation wras occupied by a veteran at the date of enlistment and where the veteran is closely related to the landlord. In such a case the landlord may give the tenant a specified notice to vacate in order to rent the property to the veteran in question. These exceptions to the "freeze" are fair and equitable. They have the effect of enabling many veterans to re-occupy premises which they owned and which they had rented to others while serving writh the armed forces, or wdiich they had rented from relatives previous to joining up.
In the case of multiple-family buildings order 511 also allows a landlord to dispossess a tenant (after at least three months' notice) in order to rent the accommodation to a veteran who is a close relative of the landlord in question. This further exception to the general "freeze" wras also made in the interests of veterans and was supported by representations from veterans' organizations.
The evictions of tenants which are taking place to-day relate mainly to cases of this sort, or to cases originally decided under order 537 where the balance of hardship wras decided by a judge in favour of the landlord, and where the notice to the tenant has now matured.
It must be admitted that in certain cases it sometimes happens that both parties are veterans, and one veteran may be evicted in favour of another. This only goes to demonstrate the difficulty of extending still further the list of exemptions to the "freeze" on tenants.
Conclusion
The protection nowr given to tenants wras introduced in 1945 because of the emergency caused by the shortage of housing. In that situation it was necessary to take drastic steps to call a halt to the movement of tenants in the interest of the greatest good of the greatest number of people. To be effective, it was necessary to keep the number of exemptions to the rule to a minimum, and the exemptions have been mainly in favour of veterans. The protection of tenants undoubtedly inflicts hardship on a small minority of landlords, and the exemptions in favour of veterans also work hardship on a small number of tenants. In recognizing this we should

Supply-Trade and Commerce
not forget that the regulations are intended to serve the interests of the majority of people, and by and large that objective has been achieved.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that it was the desire of a large number of members to continue the discussion of these items of supply beyond eleven o'clock and to resume again at ten o'clock to-morrow morning. If that is the desire of the hon. members I would be glad to move:
That standing order 7 be suspended, and that from this day to the end of the present session Mr. Speaker do adjourn the house at twelve o'clock midnight instead of eleven o'clock p.m., and that the adjournment be to ten o'clock a.m. instead of eleven o'clock a.m. the following day, notwithstanding the resolution passed in the house on July 22 last.
If it is the desire of hon. members that that be done, I beg leave to submit this motion, although I would not wish to insist upon it if it did not meet with the wish of hon. members.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr, Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
369. Departmental administration, $199,115.
Mr. IIOMUTH:: Finally, we refrained from formal protest, despite our rights under empire trade agreements, against the banning of Canadian manufactured imports from Great Britain, and at a time when we realized that the British people were short of Canadian dollars and had to conserve all their slender supply for the purchase of foodstuffs.
In other words, under the British empire agreements there are certain standards on which we could have stood solid, and said, "You are not living up to your agreement." We did not do so. I realize, of course, that hon. members look upon this party as the party of protection in Canada. I am quite proud to say that, to a limited degree, that is so. We did not protest against this because we realized that here was an international situation, here was an empire situation that meant much to the British people who had sacrificed so heavily when the war was on. We were prepared to do our part to help them obtain so-called American dollars which, in fact, were our dollars.
After referring to all-out cooperation with the British people in their present critical economic struggle, the Quebec Chronicle Telegraph goes on to call attention to a specific British treatment of a Canadian interest which, in the light of all pertinent considerations, seems completely ungracious and to call definitely for correction. The editorial says:
For over half a century Canadian Club or rye whiskey had been imported into the United Kingdom prior to the late war, during which time such a wide popularity was developed for the brand at great expense and effort that it became literally a household word. The last permit for the importation of Canadian Club into the United Kingdom was granted, however, in January, 1941, and since that time repeated applications for further permits have been made without avail. As a result, the good will obtained through the years is being rapidly lost, and will have to be reestablished again, if it can be done, by means of fresh effort and expense.
The editorial then goes on to say that the British attitude is made completely inexplicable by the fact that during the period in which Canadian Club has been persistently embargoed, the United Kingdom has imported spirits from no less than fifteen other foreign and empire countries. In this connection the editorial comments-and I confess I cannot [DOT] bring myself to disagree from the observation -that these imports came from countries whose governments-
. . . take a lively interest in the present and future prospects of their products, while both the Ottawa Department of Trade and Commerce and Canada House remain continuously asleep at the switch.
I say that, not unkindly.

This discrimination against a Canadian product by the United Kingdom authorities seemed so inexplicable to me that I could hardly believe the facts were being correctly stated. I took the trouble, therefore, to look up the most recent official figures of imports of spirits by Britain. Realizing that they had this embargo against them, to my amazement I found that the situation was precisely as the editorial had represented it. During the first four months of this year, spirit imports into the United Kingdom totaled 778,699 proof gallons as against 313,486 proof gallons in the corresponding pre-war period. On their very face, these figures established that, at a time when spirit imports are being barred from Canada by the United Kingdom authorities, they are being admitted at more than twice their pre-war volume from other countries.
I wonder if the minister, in whose qualities of tact and diplomacy we all have the highest confidence-and I say that in all sincerity, because I have had a lot to do with the Department of Trade and Commerce in the prewar period when we were trying to sell to France and other countries, and on those occasions I found no one more cooperative than the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I make that statement in all sincerity. I believe he has done everything he could, but I point out that here is something which, while on the surface it might appear unimportant, is in fact of considerable importance. It is important because everything we can sell in a foreign country is important to Canada.
So I say that I believe the minister could do a job in this instance. I believe that, in the interests of the continuance of the close relationship into which we have entered with the British people at the present time, no element of injustice should be left in the picture to breed possible future dissensions. I believe firmly in all the measures we have taken this session to assist the British people economically. But I do not believe that we should acquiesce in discrimination against our trade and see imports, with which we should certainly be allowed to compete, brought in from other countries. It may be that this matter of importing these spirits may not be thought to be important, but I want to remind the minister that, it does not matter what is exported, it is important for the people of Canada. I do not care what we import; it is important for the people of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, you represent a highly industrialized riding as I do. You have in your riding farmers and a rural population. We have to be careful that what we do to-day will be a precedent for the future. We have to do

Supply-Trade mid Commerce
these things in a way that will look after our working men. We have a fight on for higher wages which are supposed to represent better living conditions. I am all for it, but if those higher wages and that type of living conditions are going to jeopardize our position economically with the rest of the world, with low wage countries, with Russia which to-day economically and industrially is the biggest threat we have to face, then I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that we must be careful. He should make a strong protest to the government of Great Britain and make them realize that they cannot do these things against Canada.


Mr. BURTON:: I had hoped that the Minister of Trade and Commerce would have opened this discussion with a general statement of the work of his department. I-and no doubt other hon. members-am somewhat perturbed at our lack of knowledge as to just what is going on in the department. Even though we are getting toward the close of the session, we still insist that we have some information in that regard. As far as I am concerned, when the next session rolls around, unless the minister can make arrangements with those who set the orders of the day so that we can have his estimates somewhat sooner, I am going to be prepared to stay a lot longer even though I have to bring a cot into the corridors in order to be able to stick it out.
As I say, we are all concerned about what is going on. Whom are we trading with? What are we trading for? How many trade envoys and other personnel have we? What are they doing?


An hon. MEMBER:: Good work.


Joseph William Burton: Some one says, "good
work", but that is what we want to have the minister tell us. As I said a moment ago, I was disappointed that we had not a statement from the minister.


James Angus MacKinnon: He has not had a chance.


Joseph William Burton: We hope they are doing good work, but we should like to know more about the work they are doing. We should like to know whether they are all doing good work or only some of them. We should like to know whether some are just making good fellows of themselves at somebody else's expense. We want to know what they are doing in the different countries,
When the meat board estimate was up for discussion I said something which I think I should repeat. Those people who represent us in different countries should make an effort
to sell our articles to the people of those countries. If I am not mistaken, some countries have adopted a policy by which they attempt to follow their products, bacon for instance, right through to the distributor, so that the people buying that product will be certain that they are getting what they think they are getting under a proper trade name. There are many things like that we should have liked to discuss with the minister.
We should like to know whether we are just trading for the sake of trading, or whether we are trading to improve the living standards of the people of this country, in the first place, and to help people in other parts of the world who need help, in the second place. In trading, I realize it is necessary to operate with the idea of having a fair exchange of goods between countries. I realize that with some countries having had to face war for six years or longer economic conditions have been upset. I realize it is difficult to get off to a proper start. But I would point out that when we are trading we should always bear in mind that the people of our country-I have pointed this out in the house time after time-are entitled to a decent standard of living from the things they are able to produce from our natural resources.
We do not want to curtail in any way the movement of necessary supplies that can be sent to the countries that need them. Very often officials in the department become so much concerned with the carrying on of trade that they remind me of some of the old horse traders we used to have in the days when horses had still some attraction to many people. Many of those men traded horses just for the sake of trading, even though at times they might not make anything out of it. I am afraid we still have some old fashioned horse traders in the Department of Trade and Commerce.
As I told the minister last session, the department should become a little more up to date. In this connection I should like to quote from a letter which I received from a person who lives forty or fifty miles from my own home and which arrived only this morning. The things which he says in this letter are causing me considerable concern, because I know they apply not only to that neighbourhood but fairly generally over the prairie provinces. He said:
Crops that looked like 40 bushels to the acre were caught by first-six weeks drought that burned them up bad. A heavy frost came on July 22. Then we had a hail storm that further reduced the yield an d thr n to top it off, when

Supply-Trade and Commerce
we started to cut, all the low spots in the grain were under water. (Result, about 15 bushels to the acre of grade No. 3 or 4.
So many people were going about the country talking about a bumper wheat crop as if it were in the bag already, when the wheat was only coming into the head. This writer continues:
Of course we cannot buck the elements, and years of adversity, as well as a few good crops have taught us to take things as they come. But when man-made laws interfere with garnering the little crop we have got, it is time to complain.
May I interject here that when I have an opportunity to speak with this man I shall try to explain to him that it is not only manmade laws he has to contend with, because very often officials in certain departments who like to show their authority put a few additional regulations into effect. I just point that out, because often some people would lead us to believe that it is the law which is interfering with the free movement of people and trade, when often it is not the law but regulations. When we are talking about trade we should never forget that our best customers are the people right here in Canada. We must remember the importance of trading with our people in the various provinces of this country. When this man complains of man-made laws I want to emphasize that very often the real fault is man-made regulations which have not the status of law, although some people would like to put that over. He goes on to say:
I have a plough on order, paid for over a year ago, but cannot get it. There are thousands of acres waiting to be swathed and combined, but machinery is not available. So we fetched out the old binder but repairs are hard to get. You have really no idea of the thousands of dollars that are spent every day on telephone calls to locate some piece of machinery or repair, and the thousands spent on travelling from town to town to locate some sorely needed piece of repair-not counting the loss of time.
That is the condition which also prevailed last year. I remember I was in a little town about twenty-five miles from my home one day and I met a man wrho lived another twenty-five miles from there. We went into a little cafe and had a bite to eat, and he told me that he had spent all that day chasing up and dowm the country from one point to another trying to locate a few repairs he needed for his machine so that he could go ahead with his harvesting. This writer continues:
Two of my neighbours travelled all the way to Wisconsin, the only place where they could get repairs for their tractor and other machinery.
[Mr. Burton.1
That is a fine how-do-you-do. We go to work and export farm machinery and parts to the United States, and then some of our own Canadians have to cross the line to get repairs they need for their own machines to take the crop off in this country, crops that not only we in this country need but other people whom we are proposing to help by sending them food and machines and other things.
As 1 said before, I want to cooperate as much as possible with the minister, but there are some questions which we want answered, and I can assure the minister that he will have the appreciation not only of myself but also of my colleagues if he will so arrange matters with the powers that be who make the orders of the day for this house that his estimates come up for consideration earlier in the session.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a few words, Mr. Chairman. But first let me say to the hon. member for Humboldt that if he wants that procedure to be followed in the house he should not say that he will tell us more than he has done to-day because, if he does that, the estimates may come only after the session is over. If he really wants to have the estimates brought up for consideration earlier in the session, he must state that he will speak with great brevity, make no long speeches.


Joseph William Burton: I can assure the hon. member that I have not taken up one fraction of the time he has in delaying the consideration of these estimates.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend must not consider what I said as a reproach. It was a most amicable suggestion because I want the same thing too, and I will tell the minister that if he will bring his estimates up earlier in the session I will make only five-minute speeches in the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell you that trade and commerce is the most important department in this country now that the war is over. Trade is the very lifeblood of our country, and those who do not believe that have not the least notion of the needs of this country in the postwar period. We have no information at all about trade. Trade does not exist. A trade of gifts, a Santa Claus trade, is not trade at all. Santa Claus is not a big merchant; he is not a big business man. But Canada is Santa Claus.


Mr. PARENT:: Santa Claus makes a lot of money.


Jean-François Pouliot: No; other people make a lot of money through Santa Claus. Santa

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Claua is not a businessman, according to one of the greatest men whom my hon. friend admires and supports so much, Doctor Chisholm. According to Doctor Chisholm, Santa Claus does not exist.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am here to do my duty and I will perform it. This is not a joke at all. Trade is the most important thing in this country in the post-war period. It is important to fhe businessman, to the farmer, to the country storekeeper, to all those who are engaged in trade. All the men employed in industry benefit from trade, and if they ever knew that in this House of Commons a member who defends them is interrupted by some hecklers who are anxious to go home, and who unfortunately do not go, they would be astounded. How can a man go before the electors of his constituency and ask for their votes when he is untrue to his duty as a member of parliament and when he does not realize the importance of trade in the post-war period? I am most indignant on behalf of my constituents at these interjections, and I should like the constituents of those members who shouted out a moment ago to be here in this House of- Commons and see the sad performance of their representatives in these late hours of the session.
If the estimates come before us late in the session, it is not our fault. These are some of the most important estimates that come before us because, if the Department of National Revenue succeeds in collecting taxation, it is precisely because of the benefits that will have come through trade to our merchants and to all our people in this country. Therefore trade is a vital thing, and it is just as vital for the farmers as it is for the industrialists and the working men.
What is the first condition of trade? The first condition of trade is economic independence. 1 repeat now what I said during the war, and which was not denied by a Tory to the core like the former leader of the opposition, the former member for York-Sunbury, Mr. Hanson: We must be economically independent. That is just as true as sunlight at noon. We must be economically independent, meaning by that that our commercial agents and representatives abroad shall not be under the tutelage of any other country and shall not have to report to British consulates, agents and British ambassadors.
The minister will remember that when the only consul general that we have, Mr. Scully, was appointed to New York, the Prime Minister announced that he would work in close cooperation with the British authorities. That
is on record in Hansard. It is a fact, and if the position of our agent were such that there should happen to be a difference between English and Canadian businessmen, the Canadians should have the full support of our government. But in order to have it they should be prefectly independent and should not say to those of other countries, "Go ahead and we will follow you." I do not say that for the purpose of deprecating the merits of the minister, because I have profound admiration for him and, besides that, he is a personal friend of mine. But in these matters we must try to be realists and must realize the importance of both export and import trade. I have the more sympathy for the minister in that he is not the master of his department. There is the stabilization board, which is under the Minister of Finance, and he has also to wait for permits from the wartime prices and trade board, et cetera, et cetera. We are not free to export what we have. There are so many controls that the Canadian producer, the Canadian manufacturer, or the Canadian exporter is not free to trade with other nations, while the trade of other nations is made the easier. There are so many entanglements here that it is most difficult for any Canadian producer to ship his produce abroad to any other country in the world.
The first consideration in regard to trade being economic independence, the second is that we should sell at world prices; and of course it is not done in that way, because we sell at prices which are established by agreements. The Minister of Finance, on May 6, at page 1228-9 of Hansard, gave information about subsidies that are paid: For wheat flour, $147,000,000; fisheries products, $12,000,000; meat, eggs and cheese, $130,000,000, or a total of $273,005,422. It has been paid in part by a balance of $160,236,000 owing to the United Kingdom for the- maintenance of Canadian troops in the United Kingdom and in theatres of operation between April 1, 1943, and February 28, 1945. I will not say now what I think of the controls at present. I will not say all I think of them, but I say that it is wrong, and I regret very much the inferiority complex of all the men in charge of public affairs, their inferiority complex toward graduates of Oxford, Cambridge and other universities. I find we need the least possible number of those men in all departments, including the Department of Trade and Commerce. What we need is men of experience and business standing like the minister him-helf, but his aides should be equal to himself.
We hear a good deal about the scarcity of wheat in England and it is very strange, but I always have something vp my sleeve to
Supply-Trade and Commerce

establish the veracity of what I say. We are told they have no flour in England, and yet I have here the third letter that was sent to Mr. Emile Ouellette, a grocer of Riviere du Loup, by Peek Frean's Company Limited of London. It is impossible to get Canadian biscuits in any store here. One may get only a package at a time, and yet this is the third letter from Peek Frean's Biscuits to Mr. Ouellette. It is dated June 10, 1946 and reads: Dear Sirs,
We beg to refer to our export price-list dated February 1946, and have to inform you that, as a result of the increased cost of ingredients and manufacture, we have found it necessary to adjust the price of our Vita-Weat (Regd.) Crispbread in order to maintain the high standard of this product.
All orders dated as from to-day, therefore, will be subject to the net prices shown below.
How is it, if flour is so scarce over there, they can send us biscuits made in England when we cannot get Canadian biscuits over here? As regards the wheat business, I do not know what will be the understanding in connection with world agreements compared with British agreements, but in the United States the price of wheat is $2.10 and at Fort William $1.55, or a difference of fifty-five cents. On daily shipments of a million bushels the loss to the Canadian farmer is $550,000, or a loss over 300 days of $165,000,000. There was a subsidy of $14,300,000 to the wheat pool. It is a little more this year.
The London surplus wheat, mostly Canadian, was a million tons, and on United States pressure 200,000 tons has been shipped to the continent. It is exploitation. Why not follow the example of Peron, the President of the Argentine, who has exchanged amicable messages with Canada? The government in the Argentine bought all wheat at $5. It sold part of it to Peru for $9 and the other part to the Argentineans for $2, so that the exports paid for the cheap sales to the people living within the country. That is an admirable policy. Why, therefore, should we have the kind of policy on wheat that we have when there is a world price that we could get and get across the border, and get anywhere, and which the farmers do not receive? A huge amount is paid in subsidies for wheat, but the farmers are not satisfied because, even with those subsidies, they make a loss of $165,000,000 a year.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. May I remind the hon. member that the item with regard to wheat, under the Department of Trade and Commerce, item 375, was passed some time ago. It has already been approved by the

committee. A discussion on wheat and grain at this time would not be in order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, it is the practice to discuss everything connected with the department on the item of administration, because all that is done with regard to wheat, meat, milk and everything else and all the subsidies are controlled by the personnel of the department. The item that we are on is precisely the personnel of the departs ment; but, as you insist, I shall not say much more, but I will ask questions.


Mr. DECHENE:: Three cheers.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I will make my speech, and I will ask the hon. member, who is an old member, to keep quiet.


Joseph Miville Dechene: I will not keep quiet for a mountebank like you; just turn the other way.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member does not impress me at all.


Joseph Miville Dechene: Just a mountebank.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am just as cool as a block of ice, and if he were the same he would keep quiet.


Joseph Miville Dechene: You are just a mountebank.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would suggest to him to keep quiet. I have never been bullied by anyone, and the one who would bully me is not yet born. I say that definitely to him. He may frown at me, and he may curse me, but it is absolutely indifferent to me.


Joseph Miville Dechene: Surely you have earned your money now.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Joseph Miville Dechene: Do we have to stand for this?


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman-


Joseph Miville Dechene: There must be some rules of the house-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I drew the hon. member's attention to the fact that the item concerning wheat had been settled and the hon. member stated that he would not continue discussing wheat. The hon. member for Temiscouata is in order to discuss other matters. He has the floor.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank you, sir. I shall ask some questions of the minister. I shall not ask him to answer me now. My questions will appear in Hansard, and I shall request him to tell his officials to send me the information asked for at the earliest possible oppor-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
tunity. It may be after parliament has prorogued, but I shall not mind having them in September, which seems to be reasonable.
What was the subsidy on bacon and ham sent to Great Britain under Mutual Aid? What quantity did we ship to the United Kingdom in 1944, 1945 and 1946? What was the subsidy each year? Then, with regard to milk, what has been paid on the domestic production of milk? What quantity of powdered milk and cheese has been sent each year to the United Kingdom, and what has been the subsidy paid on it?
The reason why I do not agree with all the policies of the Department of Trade and Commerce is that we have built up a oneway trade with the United Kingdom at great sacrifice, and we are paying taxation for it. I do not see why we do not take advantage of the facilities that we have in this country to trade with other countries of the world.
I have other questions to ask the minister, but I should like to have a complete list of the subsidies which have been paid on food especially by the government so as to know what encouragement has been given to the export trade.
Before closing, I have only one more remark to make, namely, that the payments which are made to us are made from gifts and loans which we have made. It is most extraordinary, because our exports are paid for by taxation. When Mr. Bennett was in power I was interested in statistics on imports and exports, but at the time Canada was paying for her imports and our exports were paid for by the countries which received our goods. At the present time we are paying for both. We pay for the imports which come from the outside and we also pay by taxes for the exports that are made to other countries, because all the loans, Mutual Aid, et cetera, et cetera, come down to taxes. I sympathize with the minister; I mean it; I know of the obstacles he has in his way; I know the difficulties he has to surmount to reestablish Canadian trade as it was before.
We have great facilities to trade with other countries of the world, especially South America. To-day there are not many difficulties because we can practise barter; we can practise barter with all the countries of the world, and we should follow those trade practices. Great Britain indulges a lot in barter and they make a success of their trade. When we are told that we should have the trade of Great Britain it is forgotten that the trade of Great Britain is better now than it was before the war. Official statistics are to that effect, and the news has appeared in the press. It is not a question of not being a good Britisher
to say that Canada must go ahead and have the best possible trade as we had before. We have made gifts. It is time for us to think of ourselves and to give the greatest possible impulses to our own trade. I know that the minister understands me and I hope that he will be sympathetic to these suggestions.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I believe the minister is going to make a statement.


James Angus MacKinnon: I certainly have no wish to hold up the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, but I think it is fit and proper that I should make a brief statement on the estimates that we are asking the committee to approve.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When the minister makes his statement will he mention the brief which was sent to him by the manufacturers' association and tell us what he intends to do about
it?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am not just sure which brief the hon. member for Peterborough West is referring to at the moment, but I can assure him-and I am sure he is aware of this -that the Department of Trade and Commerce works in close and helpful contact with the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. The work that the Department of Trade and Commerce is doing to-day for the manufacturers and producers of Canada is highly appreciated.
I should like to refer, for a moment, to the remarks of the hon. member for Waterloo South. The import licensing system being operated by the United Kingdom authorities is basically dictated by their shortage of dollars and the need to devote their resources to the purchase of essentials. Early this year we were able to make arrangements which should ultimately lead to ensuring that those who have had a past history of trade with the United Kingdom will not be completely excluded from the market on the basis that their product is non-essential, but will be allowed to make at least token shipments pending the removal of import controls, to which objective the British as well as we are striving.
This arrangement for token shipments is beginning to work in respect of a limited list of commodities, and it is expected that the list will be extended from time to time. We are continually working on this matter with the United Kingdom authorities, but so far the United Kingdom does not include whiskies in the permitted list.
During this difficult transition period, and at least until the acceptance of principles which
Supply-Trade and Commerce

it is hoped will be adopted in the forthcoming trade talks, the choice as to how the United Kingdom will use its limited supply of dollars is, in the last analysis, a matter on which the United Kingdom insists on making the decision. Frankly, as long as bread is being rationed in the United Kingdom it is difficult for Canada to insist on any particular export to that country.
Before going into the details of the different votes for the Department of Trade and Commerce, I am glad to make a brief preliminary statement on the major activities which the Department has in hand, more especially on those activities which occasion the chief increases that I am asking the committee to approve in the estimates for the current year.
The aggregate increase in the estimates for the department runs into a substantial figure- roundly $3,175,000-and I should perhaps emphasize the fact that the responsibilities of the department are spread over a much wider field than, I believe, is generally appreciated.
Roughly, one-third of the total increase, or something over a million dollars, is required for the six divisions that make up the foreign trade service. Here, during the remainder of this fiscal year, we are going to have to meet heavy additional costs if we are to be in a position to provide all the facilities that are needed to prosecute our trade with other countries in the most effective way. The main additional costs are those connected with the ' extension of our trade commissioner offices abroad, and of our trade publicity programme, both in Canada and in other countries. We shall have to make added expenditures also, but on a lesser scale, in order to place our headquarters organization here at Ottawa on a basis that will ensure that we can give the most efficient support to the men who are carrying on trade promotion in the field. Since the close of hostilities, we have made good headway in reopening our offices abroad, but there is still p, great deal to be done in that direction before we can feel satisfied that we are adequately equipped to assist both import and export trade.
The heaviest increase in the votes for the current year, even larger than that for the foreign trade service, will be found in the estimates for the dominion bureau of statistics. Here the increase, compared with last year, amounts to roundly $1,360,000. Most of this is needed to cover the cost of the regular quinquennial census of the prairie provinces now being taken. However, there is a considerable increase also in connection with the bureau's general statistical work. This

is mainly to take care of new lines of statistical investigation which were initiated by the war departments during the war years and which are now to be continued-but only in so far as they are considered to be essential -by the dominion bureau. May I emphasize the fact that great care is being taken to continue permanently only those wartime statistical developments that are really indispensable to the work of one or other of the departments of the government. We have in the dominion bureau of statistics a national institution of which we may all well be proud. The demands that are made upon the bureau for the extension of statistical work are literally endless and unceasing. There is no such thing as finality in limiting the kind and scope of the work which the bureau has to undertake, but I am satisfied that the utmost care is being exercised by the senior officials at the bureau to see that new work is taken on and new expenditures incurred only in connection with national statistical needs that cannot be put aside except to the actual and serious detriment of the public or of one branch or another of the public service.
May I add just a brief further word with reference to three or four other sections of the department which call for relatively small increases in this year's appropriations, but which, nevertheless, discharge very large responsibilities?
The work carried on by the board of grain commissioners relating to the grading and inspection of grain and to the management of the government elevators is, in itself, an enormous business, one which affects in the most vital way the world-wide trade of this country in grain and grain products.
Again, we now have in the Department of Trade and Commerce the Canadian travel bureau. The work of this bureau during the next few years is bound to be of the utmost importance in rebuilding a type of trade, which I think everyone regards as one of the most promising avenues of Canadian commercial development for many years to come.
Further, we are now in process of reviving the Canadian government exhibition commission, which was dismantled and dormant during the war years. In the field of international exhibitions an active period lies immediately ahead of us. Within recent months Canada has received invitations to participate in numerous exhibitions and trade fairs abroad, and I am convinced that in a business way Canada has much to gain by getting a first-class exhibitions organization set up as quickly as possible. Attention is being given to that need.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Finally, I should mention a group of three services in the department which, although they are not much in the public eye, discharge duties of great importance to the buying public. These include the weights and measures inspection, the electricity and gas inspection and the administration of the Precious Metals Marking Act-all designed to protect the Canadian public over a wide range of their consumer purchases. Work of this type- inspection of scales, electric meters and so on -requires highly competent technical officers, and it is a class of work in which there is likely to be material expansion within the next few years.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just one word.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: I want to pass over to the minister some remarkable articles from the pen of Mr. Lorenzo Pare, of the press gallery. They appeared in L'Action Catholique in May, and they relate to subsidies for exports to the United Kingdom. The minister's officials may have an opportunity to read them later ' on; and, if he has them translated, as I hope he will, I will ask him to send me an English copy which I will send to one of my colleagues for his information and education in trade matters-the one who has just said "carried".
Mr. MaeINNIS: I believe the hon. member for Waterloo South made some reference to the necessity of keeping costs of production down in order that we may get our due share of export trade. I have not the slightest doubt that representations will be made in that regard to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and that they will be supported by some manufacturers with a view to lower wages. But I would suggest to the minister that he consider carefully pleas of that kind, because they may not be all they claim to be.
Those of us who have been interested in political affairs for some time will remember that certain textile companies in the province of Quebec, late in 1935, or early in 1936, made representations to the present government, which had just been elected to office, urging increased protection on cotton goods because of the competition with Great Britain, and for increased protection on rayon because of competition with Japan; and they threatened that, if such protection were not given, their plants might be closed.
The government of the day, to its credit, did not accede to those demands, and appointed a royal commission to investigate. It is some little time since that royal commission made its report, but I would just suggest to hon. members that the report is well
worth reading, and particularly the brief presented by counsel appointed to assist the commissioner who, in this instance, was the Hon. Mr. Justice W. F. A. Turgeon. The counsel was Mr. J. C. McRuer, who at the present time is chief justice of the trial division of the supreme court of Ontario. Mr. McRuer began his brief with these striking, perhaps I might say startling, expressions:
A shameful, sickening, story of heartless exploitation and wholesale robbery by men prominent in the public life of Canada. Inordinate greed, barefaced lying and criminal fraud characterize the careers of this gang of high-class crooks.
These were the leaders in the cotton manufacturing industry. Their plea was that, because of foreign competition and what they considered the high wages they were paying to their employees, they could not meet that competition. But when the commission had made its investigations and completed its findings, it found, as revealed in the report, that the wages paid were less than those paid to coolie labour in China.
Another gentleman who held the position of associate counsel with Mr. McRuer said this, in his brief respecting competition:
It is destructive competition that maintains wages at a low level. When responsibility does not rest with foreign competition, it lies with domestic competition waged at the expense of the worker and resulting from the wage inequality between provinces, cities, towns and villages.
That is the statement made by Elie Beauregard, K.C., associate commission counsel at that time. So that I say the government and the minister should be particularly careful that they do not pay a great deal of regard to applications of this kind, and in any event, that such applications should be carefully investigated.
Export trade is important and, as I have said before in this chamber, the less selfsufficient a nation is, the fewer its resources, regardless of whether those resources are found in abundance or not. the greater is its need for export trade. But we need that trade, or we must have that trade as a necessity only in order that we may buy those things which we do not produce or cannot produce economically. Anything over and above that is trade that can and should be used to raise the standard of living of our own people. Let us be aware of the fact that Canada's best market should and must be in Canada itself.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
371. Export division, $206,365.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: What is the position in connection with the export of fish products?
Supply-Trade and Commerce

It is my understanding that our markets for fish have dropped away from us to a great extent in the last few years.


James Angus MacKinnon: During the war the export of fish has been under the allocation of an international board.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is it not now under UNRRA?


James Angus MacKinnon: UNRRA is only one organization that is getting some of our fish. The Department of Trade and Commerce is doing the buying for UNRRA.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What about this commercial corporation that is set up?


James Angus MacKinnon: We are doing the buying through the Canadian Commercial Corporation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Have our foreign markets diminished? I understand they have.


James Angus MacKinnon: Smaller quantities of our fish exports have gone to certain traditional markets because, of necessity, we have been making much larger shipments than we did before to other countries in dire need.
Mr. MeLURE: Must we still have export permits from Ottawa to make shipments to the United States?


James Angus MacKinnon: Some months ago it was necessary, over a wide range of products, to secure export permits. In recent months and weeks that list has been greatly reduced. Just as soon as we possibly can get away from the necessity for export permits we shall do so.
Mr. MeLURE: We have in the maritime provinces numbers of small exporters. They will be shipping products valued at no more than $100 or $150, and it seems terrible nonsense to have to get a permit for each little shipment going to the United States. These are mostly fishermen who are shipping smelts in the summer time, or farmers who are shipping small quantities of their products during the season.


James Angus MacKinnon: This matter of export permits has been a great headache to the department. The Department of Trade and Commerce is merely the channel through which export permits work. These permits are issued by the department on the recommendation of controllers who are in touch with the supply situation in Canada and the necessity of maintaining sufficient in Canada for local consumption.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This is a matter of great importance to the

people living along the border, and I should like to ask the minister whether this is going to be cured. I can quite understand its necessity in connection with large quantities, but there is, I believe a legal maxim to the effect that the law does not concern itself with tiny things. It seems to me that a minimum ought to be applied. For instance, people are in the habit of sending over a few dozen eggs. Surely we can get some minimum to enable these people to live their ordinary lives.


James Angus MacKinnon: There is a minimum on certain products, and exports below that may be made without a permit.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But apparently not on all?


James Angus MacKinnon: Not on all. In our conversations with the various controllers and other branches we are trying to get away from these export permits just as soon as possible. '


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Who is the big bad wolf who will not let you do it? That is the fellow we really want to get after. You say there are controllers, and that is what we want to know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
372. Import division, $70,662.
Mr. MeLURE: When exports are made to the free port at New York no duty has to be paid, but an export permit must still be obtained. If those goods are not sold an import permit must be obtained in order to bring them back to Canada. I do not know whether the minister can rectify this, but if these control boards are holding this up we should do our best to have them done away with.
Item agreed to.
37i. Trade publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad, $459,060.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I understand that during the last few months the department has advertised for advertising men. The Canadian information service are asking for $600,000 this year and I feel that the Department of Trade and Commerce should be doing this advertising rather than the information service.


James Angus MacKinnon: We do, definitely.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What men have you obtained this year from the civil service commission to do advertising?

____________ Supply-Trade and Commerce


James Angus MacKinnon: We have employed a new director and an assistant director ourselves.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They understand imports and exports and the advertising of our products?


James Angus MacKinnon: The director was a trade commissioner for fifteen years.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would you mind saying who he is and what is his experience?


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Butler was one of our No. 1 trade commissioners for a period of fifteen years.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He ought to know something about the matter.


James Angus MacKinnon: He certainly does.


Mr. MASSEY:: I notice from the details on page 217 of the estimates that $100,000 has been allocated to advertising abroad. Upon what basis is that amount arrived at?


James Angus MacKinnon: This is to enable us to do the advertising we think might be necessary. As a matter of fact we do not plan to spend more than a small portion, but we have asked for this amount in order to carry on a programme of trade publicity when we find it necessary.


Denton Massey: The minister * may be
regarded as the sales manager for Canada and, as such, he should be vitally interested in the promotion of the sales which this country can achieve in the markets into which it exports. The sales manager of any business is interested in advertising, and he bases his appropriation on the extent of the markets and the volume which he hopes to sell. For example, what volume of sales had the minister in mind when he decided that only $100,000 would be required for advertising in foreign markets?


James Angus MacKinnon: We consider it inadvisable to go to even the extent of the amount asked for, because the government cannot be sure that we shall have the goods for export.


Denton Massey: I can readily understand that, but no doubt the minister has noted the advertising carried on during the war by many companies which had no goods to deliver but who knew it was necessary to keep their names before the public. After all, you can build the finest mousetrap in the woods, but the world will not beat a path to your door unless you tell the world where you are and that you are making the best mousetrap. I do not wish to delay the committee at any length, but it seems to me that this item of only $100,000 is pathetically small.
63260-353	.
We know in Canada that our goods are second to none. We have convinced the markets of the world that we can manufacture even the most intricate of goods with high success. The products that we made for use during the war had acceptance among the allied nations to such a degree that Canada was recognized as making the best munitions of war that were made. That reputation is hot at the moment, and we cannot afford to loSe it. Therefore it seems to me that now is the time to bring Canada's name to the attention of the markets we hope to gain, and to have "Made in Canada" stand for quality. Actually "Made in Canada" means quality now to the personnel of the forces of the allied nations who used our war material, and "Made in Canada" can continue to mean quality. But we have to keep "Made in Canada" in front of the markets to which we hope to export, and if the vote for that purpose were SI,000,000 I would strongly support it, because it is one of the most profitable expenditures we can make. Any such expenditures will return to us manyfold.


George Hugh Castleden: I wish to endorse what the hon. member for Greenwood has said. The expenditure for advertising abroad has been increased by only $5,000, from $95,000 to $100,000, while the expenditure for advertising in Canada is being increased from $30,000 to $200,000. What is the explanation of that difference and what advertising programme is in contemplation?


James Angus MacKinnon: The pressure of our advertising is being directed toward urging our people in Canada to become export conscious. There has been considerable criticism of the department because we are carrying on that advertising programme now when very shortly afterwards we have to refuse export permits to those who have received inquiries and orders from outside. But we feel that it is most important 'that the Canadian manufacturer become export-minded and maintain at least token shipments to old customers in other countries and to new customers wherever possible.


Denton Massey: There the minister is definitely putting the cart before the horse. Make your Canadian manufacturer export-conscious when he is sure of the market for his exports. The minister is spending double the amount on advertising in Canada that he is going to spend in foreign markets. That is completely reversing what I think is the. proper thing to do under the present circumstances. Spend double the amount on foreign markets, and



Supply-Trade and Commerce
then let your Canadian manufacturer follow that up after the government has paved the way with its advertising programme. You are saying to the Canadian manufacturer: Export. He asks you: Where shall I send my exports? He says: I cannot afford to advertise Canada abroad; all I can afford to do is advertise my own business. It is the minister's job to advertise Canada. Let the minister say to the Canadian manufacturer: We are creating markets for you by our advertising. I think the amount which the minister proposes to spend on advertising abroad is pathetically small, as I have already said. I would ask the minister to comment on that.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am grateful to the hon. member for Greenwood for his comments, but as a matter of fact we do not need to do any advertising outside Canada to-day to get orders. We are turning orders away by the hundreds of thousands and by the millions every week because we simply cannot fill them. We could increase our export trade tremendously if we could only send more lumber, more paper, more agricultural machinery and other things abroad. It is not a matter of encouraging buyers from outside at the present time. Our great trouble is to make our producers and our manufacturers realize that the home market is not always going to take up their total production as it can do at the present time, and we want them to look forward to the day when they will be wanting to send their surplus production to foreign countries.


Denton Massey: I fully appreciate what the minister has said, but let me add this as a final word. The minister will realize that "Made in Canada" has achieved a new position in the markets of the world to-day as a result of the last ghastly seven years. You cannot afford to let that go. Keep that phrase in its full implication vividly before the people of the nations to which we are going to export, whether we can export to them now or not. Have "Made in Canada" remain in the minds of those who know what "Made in Canada" means. If we do not do that, later on we shall have to advertise heavily to try to regain something we already possess.


Mr CRUICKSHANK:: Having had the
privilege of hearing the hon. member for Greenwood for the first time since he returned to this house after an absence of two years, I want to endorse what he has said and to congratulate him on the excellent speech he made, endorsing the sale of salmon, a sample of which I sent over from British Columbia.

I welcome the hon. member on his return to the house, congratulate him on his excellent speech and endorse everything he has said.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
879. Exhibitions, $329,652.
Denton Massey: Following along the line
of what I said a moment or two ago I notice that 8100,000 is being appropriated for participation in the Pan-American Exposition at Mexico City, whereas for participation in the British Industries Fair at London only $10,000 is being appropriated. It is unnecessary to remind the committee of the importance of the British Industries Fair. Would the minister explain the great difference in the amounts being spent on these exhibitions at Mexico City and London?


James Angus MacKinnon: These items were put in at the time the estimates were being prepared, and the $10,000 is just a preliminary item.


Denton Massey: And it will be increased?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Denton Massey: Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion. Bureau of Statistics-
381. Statistics, including contribution of $2,530 to the Inter-American Statistical Institute, $2,090,670.
Angus MacInnis: Does the compilation of the cost of living index come under this department through the bureau of statistics?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: There has been considerable criticism of the basis on which the cost of living index is prepared. It is desirable that we should have as reliable, a cost of living index as possible because it is used so often. I would suggest to the minister that he give consideration to having an investigation made of the items that should go into a modern cost of living index, with proper weight being given to the various items. The number of items included should, I think, be greatly increased to enable us to have a truer estimate of what the cost of living really is.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is a large increase here of nearly half a million dollars. We all believe in statistics and I have a high opinion of the head of the bureau; nevertheless it can run riot if there is no check. Who assumes responsibility for the size of the institution? It can be developed without limit unless there is someone keeping check on it. I do not

______________Supply-Trade and Commerce
know what it was the year before last, but it has increased twenty-five per cent this year.


James Angus MacKinnon: A very large portion of that amount is required for services which the bureau has been asked to provide for the Department of Health and Welfare in connection with various activities.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Family allowance?


James Angus MacKinnon: Partly-vital statistics.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions-
383. Administration, $18,333.
Harry Grenfell Archibald: When can the port of Prince Rupert expect the subsidy put back on steamships calling there?


James Angus MacKinnon: The matter is under consideration.


Percy Chapman Black: I wish to mention a matter of importance, namely, the ferry boat Kipawo which served in Minas basin, calling at the ports of Kingsport, Parrs-boro and Wolfville. There is one port in the constituency of Cumberland and there are two in the constituency of Digby-Annapolis-Kings, represented by the Minister of Finance, who is not here to speak for his constituents. His constituents certainly need someone to speak for them in this matter. This boat was built in 1926 and named after the three towns involved, the ports of call. The boat was taken off early in the war and used for war purposes in Newfoundland. At the termination of the war it was sold in Newfoundland, even though the people interested agreed to invest a reasonable sum to purchase it or to secure a new boat to continue the service. During the war, motorists had to use gasoline and wear out their tires going 150 miles additional. This was the only ferry service in all Canada that was cancelled. I appreciate the attitude of the minister, because he told me personally that he was favourable to the continuance of it. The people have no service now. This ferry had been in operation for more than forty years. I would point out that unlimited sums were expended from the Canadian exchequer on the construction of ships of different kinds which have been sold at only a fraction of their cost. I have before me a list of some of these ships, but. I will not delay the committee by reading them. I will mention only two items among those brought before the war expenditures and economies committee. There was the Andre Dupre, length 125 feet; monthly rental, $1,187.50, cost 63260-3531
of repairs and rents while under R.C.N., $31,008.21; cost of reconditioning for return to owners, or cash settlement in lieu, $9,0.10.73. There is another one of which the cost of recondition amounts to $103,361.57. The people of the three ports were supported by the boards of trade in the ports of call and in the constituency of the Minister of Finance in order that this service which had been in operation for over forty years and which had always proved so useful might be restored. They have taken a great pride in the service. I would ask the minister to make a statement as to the policy of his department and its attitude toward securing a suitable ship and the question of having the service restored. If he takes steps to bring this about he will have the cooperation of all the people directly interested.


James Angus MacKinnon: I remember very well the hon. member speaking along the same line with reference to this same service a year ago. Since then, to the best of my recollection, I have not had a single request from anyone for it.


Percy Chapman Black: The boards of trade have taken action in an endeavour to get a vote.


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not think anything has come to the department. However, I will look into the matter.


Percy Chapman Black: The Kipawo was sold in Newfoundland under protest from the people concerned. They wanted it brought back.


James Angus MacKinnon: I will look into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada Grain Act-
389. Canadian government elevators, including equipment, $740,923.
Harry Grenfell Archibald: What use does the government intend to make of the Prince Rupert grain elevator this year?


James Angus MacKinnon: There is a great deal of wheat planned for shipment via the Pacific in this next crop year. I am not sure at the moment to what extent the Prince Rupert elevator is being used, but I shall make inquiries and write personally to the hon. member.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Could the minister make an additional statement in connection with Churchill facilities? There has been a good deal of discussion in the west, and he might indicate whether the Churchill elevator will be filled to capacity at the end of the grain season.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


James Angus MacKinnon: I am informed that there is sufficient wheat at Churchill to fill the vessels which are already on their way to that port. I am further informed that the wheat board is providing from this crop sufficient wheat to fill at least two more vessels and to provide wheat for all ships that are being sent to Churchill. In addition to wheat, there are some other commodities that are being exported.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Will the elevator be filled at the end of the shipping season?


James Angus MacKinnon: With the situation in Europe we cannot promise to put any wheat in there that we shall not be able to move for a year.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It is better to have the grain there than in the fields.


James Angus MacKinnon: If we have a very large crop I can assure my hon. friend that the facilities at Churchill will be used.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian government travel bureau-*
390. To assist in promoting tourist business in Canada, $650,000.
Mr. HERRIDGE:: Several provinces have travel bureaus. Does the department do anything to avoid overlapping?


James Angus MacKinnon: We have called a meeting of the various provincial departments that are in charge of tourist traffic. The meeting is called for October in Ottawa, and we have had responses from several provinces that their ministers, and, in most cases, officials, will be here so that we can coordinate, our efforts along that line.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Where do we stand?


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Shall I report the resolutions?


Denton Massey: I have no desire to prolong the discussion of the estimates, but we were told it was twelve o'clock. Item 390 did not carry.


William Henry Golding: We carried item 390, but I am sure the minister will permit a discussion on it.


James Angus MacKinnon: Certainly.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved:
That the reports of the committee of supply made to the house on May 10, .16, 17, 28, 29, 30, June 7, 14, 17, 21, 24, 28, July 5, August 6, 10, 12, 14, 15, .16, 17, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, less amounts voted in interim supply be now received, read a second time and concurred in.
John Bracken: As a matter of information, may I ask what the purpose is in making this motion now when there are still other resolutions to come?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am informed that the resolutions should be printed in Votes and Proceedings, and if we left them all to the last day it would leave too much work to be done on that occasion. If they are concurred in this evening the printing can be started at once, and this will facilitate the arrangement for final adoption of the bill based upon the resolutions.


John Bracken: The whole purpose is to avoid too large a bulk on some later matters?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: To have the printing commence at once so as to facilitate the proceedings which will be required in connection with the bill based upon the resolutions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. St. Laurent the house adjourned at 12.08 a.m.
Friday, August 30, 1946