1952-06-19

AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Bater.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 348, for the relief of Maurice Speyer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 349, for the relief of Lorraine Souillet Heaven.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 350, for the relief of Charlotte Elizabeth Johnston Rawson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 351, for the relief of Eleanor Luba Hirschfield Mott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 352, for the relief of Marguerite Anne Sweeting Russell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 353, for the relief of Amy Stirling Price.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 354, for the relief of Jean Irene Ross Roche.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 355, for the relief of Regina Landry Brouillard.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 356, for the relief of Jean-Paul Malo.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 357, for the relief of Robert Arthur Reeve.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 358, for the relief of Joyce Mary Barton Vallis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 359, for the relief of Lawrence Edward James.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 360, for the relief of Helene Mary Reusing Hutchins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 361, for the relief of Charles Lewis Lipton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 362, for the relief of Joseph Kovacs.-Mr. Winkler.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That the subject of a pension plan for members of parliament after long service based on contributions by all members be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is adopted I want to say just a word. I have indicated to my colleagues in my own party and to all others with whom I have had an opportunity to discuss this matter since it was first mooted at this session that I could not agree with the pension plan
at least so far as it has been disclosed to us up to the present.
My feeling is that if it is desired that members of parliament should have pensions for long service, and the members are prepared to finance that plan on the basis of their own contributions, then there would be no objection to it. But as the plan has so far been outlined-and I must say that we have not any real specific details of it and therefore my remarks this morning will be short-in so far as we do have knowledge of it, I understand it is to be financed on the basis of an equal contribution from the treasury, that is from the taxpayers of Canada. On the basis that I now understand it, it will be of a nature far more generous and available at times far shorter than is usually the case with pension plans. It seems to me wrong in principle for members of parliament in this way to vote themselves a pension on a basis more generous than the usual plan, by means of a contribution from the treasury.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand this matter is to be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce, and it may be that particulars will be given there which minimize the objections which I have to it. But on the basis of my understanding of the scheme presently under consideration, I have felt and still feel that it is wrong in principle, and I wish to indicate at this stage that I have that feeling and am opposed to it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure intituled, "An Act respecting Currency, the Royal Canadian Mint and the Exchange Fund," providing therein for certain administrative changes, and repealing the Currency Act, part II of the Department of Finance and Treasury Board Act, sections twenty-eight, twenty-nine and thirty of the Bank of Canada Act and the Foreign Exchange Control Act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
3416	HOUSE
Inquiries of the Ministry POSTAL SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: May I ask the
Postmaster General if his department has made arrangements with the Royal Canadian Air Force to drop mail to the residents of Sable island during the course of training flights?


Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General):: want to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. I might inform him that at the present time there are standing instructions to the effect that mail is to be dispatched on every available flight going to Sable island. I may add that I shall be glad to inquire into the possibility of using Royal Canadian Air Force training flights to drop mail on the island.



ORAL ROBERTS HEALING CAMPAIGN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minisler of National Revenue):: I should like to refer to the question asked in the house by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Catherwood) concerning the payment of $700 as custom charges on the entry into Canada of the Oral Roberts Healing Campaign. This matter was dealt with in accordance with routine practice.
The equipment imported by this evangelist consisted of a large tent capable of seating
10,000	persons, the necessary chairs, lighting equipment, loud speakers, furnaces, organ, etc., all transported in eight trucks and seven trailers. This equipment, in the ordinary course, would be subject to payment of duty on its full value, but in accordance with customary practice the sanction of council was obtained for collection of duty on the trucks and equipment on l/60th of their value, per month.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Will the Minister of Resources and Development table in the house the agreement recently entered into with the province of Ontario under which the province is assuming the full 25 per cent portion of the cost of providing low-rental housing under section 35 of the National Housing Act, thereby relieving the municipalities of the burden?
IMr. Abbott.]



OF COMMONS

Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: There is no new agreement between this government and the government of the province of Ontario. The legislation and the basic agreement provides for the government of Canada to pay 75 per cent of the cost of projects under section 35, and the provincial government to pay 25 per cent. How they apportion that 25 per cent between themselves and the municipalities is a matter for them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I assume that the ministei saw the press report in yesterday's press indicating that there was a new agreement in that respect entered into between the province of Ontario and the dominion, under which the province was assuming all of the municipalities' 7J per cent share. Is there anything in that press report at all?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, I understand there is something in that press report. We have been aware of discussions the government of Ontario has been having with the municipalities, and they have arrived at some new apportionment of the costs which I understand will be helpful to the municipalities. This arrangement could have been entered into at any time since the legislation was enacted in 1949.



CANADIAN TROOPS ON KOJE ISLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Slaie for External Affairs):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked me if we had received a reply from the United States government to the note we addressed to them regarding the dispatch of a Canadian company for duty on Koje island in Korea. As I indicated, that reply came in yesterday morning, and I have now had a chance to examine it.
In that reply the United States government states its appreciation of the importance attached by the government of Canada to the maintenance of Canadian forces as a unit, and the feeling underlying Canada's traditional position in this matter, and therefore, the United States government desires to meet the wishes of the Canadian government in so far as is practicable without endangering the United Nations military effort in Korea. This friendly assurance is welcomed and the qualification is understood and quite acceptable, as it was, of course, never our intention that the natural desire to keep Canadian forces together under Canadian command should be permitted to endanger the United Nations military effort in Korea.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask the Minister of Finance if he is in a position to report to the house on his recent discussions with civil service representatives concerning the possibility of the five-day week?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I am not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister be in a
position to discuss the matter when we reach his estimates?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be in a position to answer questions, but I do not know that I shall be able to give a great deal of information in addition to what has already been furnished.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 18, consideration in committee of Bill No. 337, respecting the Northwest Territories-Mr. Winters-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 41-Regulations respecting reindeer.
Mr. Adamson:: Before this section carries, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say one word in connection with those who have been responsible for the policy of shifting reindeer. I should like to let the house know of the excellent work which was done, particularly by one Dr. Porsild, as well as many others in the department. They have moved these reindeer many thousands of miles over a period of many years. The movement of the herd will mean that the economy of the whole eastern Arctic, having regard to the Eskimos, may now be placed on a stable basis.
I could not allow this one clause to pass without paying tribute to the men who have been responsible for this work and particularly to Dr. Porsild, not only because he has done this work with regard to the reindeer but because his work with regard to the shifting of the caribou is also outstanding. When we have public servants of such outstanding merit as are the people who have done this job of pioneering in this territory, I think we in the House of Commons should commend them whenever possible.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Northwest Territories Act
On section 42-Manufacture and importation of intoxicants.
Mr. Fraser:: Are the regulations with regard to the sale of liquor to Indians the same in these territories as they are in other parts of Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: The same regulations in that connection prevail in the Northwest Territories as elsewhere in Canada.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What about sale to the Eskimos?


Robert Henry Winters: Sale to the Eskimos is prohibited.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is also prohibited?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 43 to 48 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed1.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
141. Departmental administration, $294,900.
Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Chairman, on Friday last the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo rose to speak just before the house adjourned, and it is his right to speak first this morning. However, I asked him if I might have the privilege of first answering the two hon. gentlemen who spoke on Friday, namely the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for St. John's West. The hon. member has kindly consented to allow me to do that. First, I should like to thank the hon. member for Skeena for his kind remarks with regard to the department. Su<ch remarks are always appreciated.


An hon. Member:: We cannot hear the minister.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Mr. Chairman, I think I can make myself heard if there is not too much other noise in the chamber.
As I was saying, I want to thank the hon. member for Skeena for his kind remarks with regard to the department. Such remarks are always appreciated. I sometimes think that our civil servants and officials, not only in this department but in others, do not get the encouragement they should. When you are in ordinary business, there are many ways of measuring the success or failure of your business. It can be done by noting the

Supply-Fisheries
sales of your product, your production in the factories or by your balance sheet. But in government operation we have many valuable servants, and there is little way in which you can measure their success unless it be by the occasional compliments which are paid to them. It is not often these compliments come to them. If business is good in the country generally, the industry itself takes credit for that situation, and the ministers will take the balance of the credit. But in many cases the credit is due to those behind the scenes. I felt that this should be on record as far as my department is concerned.
The hon. member for Skeena first raised the question about sales and excise tax on fishing gear used in commercial fishing. I have been looking into that matter. In the immediate post-war years it was the policy of the government to encourage production
as much as possible by removing the sales tax, the excise tax and duty, as was done with regard to agricultural implements and in many other fields of production. At the same time they removed these duties and taxes on many commodities for fishermen as well. I have here a fairly lengthy list of articles on which these taxes have been removed. If I have the consent of the house I will place this list on Hansard without taking the time to read it. I might also say that the secretary-manager of the fisheries council of Canada, in co-operation with members of our own economics branch is giving further study to this matter, to see whether there are any other items in addition to those on this list on which these same taxes might be removed. I think that probably answers the first question.



ARTICLES USED BY COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN WHICH ARE NOT DUTIABLE UNDER THE BRITISH PREFERENTIAL OR M.F.N. TARIFF AND WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM SALES TAX

[Stage Direction]
Tariff item	-	British prefer- ential tariff	Most- favoured- nation tariff	Exempt from sales tax40	Salt for the use of the sea or gulf fisheries	Free	Free	Yes440d	Anchors for vessels	Free	Free	Yes440e	Wire rope for use exclusively for rigging of ships and vessels, under regulations prescribed by the minister	Free	Free	Yes440f	Iron or steel masts, or parts thereof; iron or steel angles, beams, knees, plates and sheets; cable chain; all the foregoing for ships and vessels, under regulations prescribed by the minister	Free	F ree	Yes440k	(1) Manufactures of iron, brass or other metal, of a class or kind not made in Canada, for use exclusively in the construction or equipment of ships or vessels, under regulations prescribed by the minister	Free	Free	Yes440h	Chronometers and compasses, and parts thereof, including cards therefor, of a class or kind not made in Canada, for ships or aircraft	Free	Free	Yes440k	(1) Engines and complete parts thereof, n.o.p., to be used exclusively in the propulsion of boats or in hoisting nets and lines used in such boats bona fide owned by individual fishermen for their own use in the fisheries, under such regulations as the minister may prescribe	Free	121 P-C.	Yes(2) Diesel engines and complete parts thereof, to be used exclusively in the propulsion of boats or in hoisting nets and lines used in such boats for use exclusively in bona fide commercial fishing operations, under such regulations as the minister may prescribe	Free	(Exception) F ree	Yes
IMr. Mayhew.I

Supply-Fisheries

[Stage Direction]
Concluded
Tariff item	-	British prefer- ential tariff	Most- favoured- nation tariff	Exempt from sales tax682	Fish hooks, for deep-sea or lake fishing, not smaller in size than number 2.0; fishing nets and nettings of all kinds; threads, twines, marlines, fishing lines, rope and cordage of cotton, hemp, manila or other vegetable fibre, not exceeding one and one-half inches in circumference, to be used for fishing purposes or for the construction or repair of fishing nets; the foregoing not to include such articles used for sportsmen's purposes, and to be subject to such regulations as the minister may prescribe	F ree	Free	Yes682a	Net floats of any material except wood, for use exclusively in commercial fishing	Free	Free	Yes
(1) Not including wire rope used in fishing gear, o.g. trawl warps.
Memorandum
Re: Representations of Fisheries Council of Canada Customs duties and sales tax Prior to the last budget the council made representations to the Department of Finance, which were supported by this department, that changes should be made in the customs and sales tax procedure with respect to the following items:
Tariff item No. 401b-Wire rope and cable-dutiable at 15 per cent B.P. and 25 per cent M.F.N.
Tariff item No. 440k-Gas engines-The rate allowed under this item is available only to bona fide fishermen, which does not include engines financed for fishermen or engines bought by companies.
Tariff item No. 682(1)-Rope over 1J inches in circumference which is currently dutiable.
In his second question he referred to the Babine slide. The Babine lake is the principal spawning area for the salmon that go up the Skeena river and from the Skeena river and the Babine river into Babine lake. Just close to the confluence of the Babine river and Skeena river there was early last spring a substantial slide blocking the river. This slide was some 200 miles or more away from the mouth of the Skeena river. There were no roads, and no means of getting in there. The first intimation we had that the salmon were not getting up the river was the fact that bruised and damaged fish were returning to salt water. This was immediately investigated, and the slide was discovered. There were some 70 odd miles of primary road to build before we could get any equipment into where the slide occurred, and the construction of this road was undertaken immediately. The road has been completed and it now extends within a few hundred yards of the slide itself.
Engineers from our own department, as well as from the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission, have been in that area and examined the results of the slide, and in a few weeks they will be able to give a better idea of the work necessary to repair the damage. They are also preparing to lift the salmon from the river over the slide and allow them to go free to the spawning grounds in Babine lake. I am happy that this work is progressing satisfactorily, and a great deal of credit should go to the group of engineers and men who have been looking after this work in a very difficult area. It is hilly, with heavy bush and deep snow; but nevertheless the work did not stop during the winter and has continued up to the present time.
The hon. member for Skeena also asked a question with respect to the conservation methods that we are adopting in regard to flatfish. Regulations are now being formulated to give the chief supervisor of fisheries power to close fishing in Skidegate inlet when such is deemed necessary for conservation, and particularly during spawning season. With regard to conservation of flatfish generally, the fisheries research board has been carrying on investigations for a number of years past and in its estimates this year there is an amount of $81,500 for continuance of the work.
Then the hon. member referred to tuna in his fourth point. For two years we carried on the work of prospecting for tuna in an effort to find where the tuna were, the best method of catching them and what type of lure would be most suitable. This proved of very great benefit to the fishermen, but we
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Fisheries
now feel that it is not necessary to carry on that work because the fishermen themselves know the approximate time of the runs and the lure necessary to catch the fish. In addition to that, the fish and wildlife service of the United States have their boat there, and from them we get information. We in turn give this information by radio and any other means possible to our own fishermen. Since we are short of boats, we believe that what boats we have can be put to better uses in other places, and we think that for the present at least we should not continue this tuna patrol. I think I have dealt with all the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena.
The hon. member for St. John's West thought I should have made a statement at the opening of the discussion on the estimates rather than wait to the end. From experience
1	believe that everyone can get more information, and certainly the department can, by reserving for private members as much of the time allocated for fisheries estimates as is possible. After all, the estimates for the department are brought before parliament, and I regard this as an opportunity for hon. members to ask questions, to criticize or to make complaints. I feel that in that way both the members and the department would be served best. However, I do think that at this time I should take a moment or two to say something about the general trend, particularly of prices and of the catch in Canada.
So far as Newfoundland is concerned, they have no carry-over of salted fish from last year. The world supply of salted fish is, if anything, less than it was in former years. In addition to that, the price is holding pretty firm and we think it will continue to hold firm. However, no one can guarantee that it will. It will depend to some extent on the general food prices in Canada; if they remain firm or if they go down or up, they will be sure to influence somewhat the price paid for salted fish as well as for other fish.
So far as filleting is concerned, there has been quite an expansion of the filleting industry in Newfoundland, and this helps to diversify the fishing industry of that province, I think to their advantage. I might say that the first year in which Canada exceeded the 100 million dollar mark in fish was in 1945. This last year the catch has gone slightly over
2	billion pounds. Of that amount Newfoundland caught last year some 621 million pounds. The second province in Canada in amount was British Columbia with some 600 million pounds. Newfoundland has added considerably to the status of Canada so far as the fishing industry is concerned.

So far as general price in the maritimes is concerned, that is also holding up very well, as is the price for the inland fisheries. In British Columbia there is a slightly different situation. Last year was among the all-time highs, with a pack of slightly over 2 million cases of canned salmon. That, with the temporary suspension of sales to Europe, means there is a carry-over. But a carry-over is not unusual in the salmon canning industry. They are accustomed to large packs, which sometimes increase for a matter of two or three years; and then the surpluses have later been moved out. In all probability the same will happen again, although we must admit that at the present time there is some difficulty, particularly in connection with the smaller concerns that are not well financed. But that situation is being watched very carefully to see if the department can be of any help.
Generally speaking, one must be reasonably well satisfied with the progress of the industry. It is not contracting; it is an expanding industry, as it should be, in Canada.
Mr. Pearkes:: Could the minister say the extent of the carry-over on the Pacific coast?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No. I do not know what the extent of the carry-over is. I do not think it would be in the best interests of all to publish it, if I did know; and I think the hon. member will understand why.
Then, the hon. member for St. John's West asked about the fisheries prices support board, and the program of deficiency payments made on the 1950 production of salted cod. The hon. member suggested that we should have made different payments, depending upon the actual prices received by the individual fishermen.
I explained before in this house that to have done so would have destroyed the market relationship between different qualities and between different localities. In my opinion, the kind of price support the hon. member is advocating would remove the price incentive to produce better quality, and, until we have better quality, there is little hope of our solving the problem. May I say here that I think the speediest way we can get greater return to the fishermen of Newfoundland, as in other places, is to try to get more out of the volume we have taken. In other words, the solution is to have premium fish; and premium fish for Newfoundland in my opinion is highly desirable, because Newfoundland has to overcome the disadvantage of distance from the main

markets. They can overcome that disadvantage by premium quality. To that end not only the industry, but the department as well, is working.
The hon. member also suggested that we should make special payments to those who had a low catch. Low catches are due to many factors. The fish may not be there; the weather may be bad; the method of fishing may be inefficient and, in some cases, one fisherman may not work as hard as his neighbour. To undertake to meet every case of low income through subsidy would destroy all incentive for the fisherman to do his best, and would result in no progress toward the use of more efficient methods.
The hon. member also referred to the drift of fishermen away from the salted fish industry. In a few years he will probably be complaining about the drift back into the fisheries. It is only natural that at some periods one industry is going to be more attractive than another. During the present period, when the fishery is adjusting itself to new conditions, which is bound to take time if it is to be done right, it may well be in the best interests of all concerned if some of the fishermen can find employment elsewhere.
And may I say on that point that I believe this is in accordance with the policy of the Newfoundland government, which is doing everything it can to bring new industries into that province, so that the people there will not be solely dependent upon the fisheries for their welfare.
But there is nothing new in this. Let my hon. friend look at the wartime figures and he will find a decline much greater than that of today; but he will also find that the number increased just as quickly after the war was over.
The hon. member had something to say about the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act and the small number of loans being made. He neglected to point out that in fisheries, unlike agriculture, there are provincial fishermen's loan boards in all the eastern provinces. He also neglected to point out that, rather than make repayable loans to fishermen to help them get better boats, the federal government is providing outright grants. No such grants are made to farmers.
Although I believe most hon. members are aware of this fact, perhaps I should explain that we do give subsidies to groups of fishermen who want to build draggers, and boats of that nature. This assistance is given to the extent of $165 a ton. In addition, the loan boards of the various provinces do make repayable loans.
Supply-Fisheries
The hon. member referred to a question on the order paper which had reference to long-lining experiments. In his speech last Friday evening he stated that he had asked for the value of the catch. As will be seen at page 585 of Hansard, he asked for the cost since the commencement of long-liner experiments in Newfoundland cod fishing, and the revenue received from that operation. This information was given.
In 1950 the operation was on an experimental basis, and the charters contemplated the value of the fish taken would accrue to the government. In 1951 the operation was planned to provide information based upon fishing to produce maximum quantities from known areas. The boat O Johnny O operating from June 9 to December 15 caught 398,313 pounds of fish. Gross stock from sale of this fish was $9,599. After providing a boat's share of 20 per cent and expenses of $2,156 there was a share of $1,842 for each of the crew of three men. I might add that they were fishing approximately six months, and the amount received made an average of over $300 a month for the members of the crew.
Captain Hemeon commenced operating with the Miss Osborne. It unfortunately was lost in early August. He continued with the East Wind for a short time and latterly the Edward Humby. He produced 391,000 pounds of marketable cod. Gross stock sales were $10,129. After providing boat shares and operating expenses, four men shared $1,522 each.
If the Miss Osborne had continued throughout the season and there was no lost time it is estimated 500,000 pounds of fish would have been taken with an estimated share per man of $1,822.
Detailed comparisons have been worked out as to operations by these two boats and a selected number of the better boats at Bona-vista. After taking all aspects of operation into consideration the crew shares of the long-lining boats were about double those of the local boats operating traps, line trawls and hand lines.
While under existing conditions funds for bait depot construction are necessarily restricted, the department continues to give consideration to the establishing of bait service facilities, but depending on measurement of need.
With regard to the specific instances cited by the hon. member; in the first, the North Harbour area comprising North Harbour, St. Joseph's, New Bridge, Mount Carmel and Tickles, fish production is small. The distances between each of these villages and North Harbour is considerable, and our information is that it is not likely that if a depot

Supply-Fisheries
were established at North Harbour fishermen from the other villages would patronize it.
With reference to the request for a depot at Colinet island, while there is greater fishing effort there, the fact is that the existing depot at St. Mary's is only eight miles distant and surely some arrangement could be worked out among the fishermen to obtain and transport bait from this plant. It is a fact that Colinet island fishermen have been using the St. Mary's depot.
In all of the above settlements a total of about 130 fishermen operated in 1951, the production of salted codfish by trawls being less than 4,000 quintals. Following due consideration it is the view of the department that even if bait storage facilities were provided at these places the production of fish would not be materially increased.
The hon. member referred to the Newfoundland fisheries development committee, stating that it had been working for the past two years and asking whether I could report on what has been done and whether or not an interim report had been presented by the committee. In the first place I should point out that this committee was set up early in 1951 and therefore has been working for only a little over one year. During this period the committee has brought together a great deal of information from many sources on all aspects of the Newfoundland fisheries. The committee has indicated to me that it expects to have its report completed in the fall of this year. The report, when completed, should provide a road map for the future development of the fisheries of Newfoundland.
With respect to an interim report, the committee did make certain proposals for additional exploratory and technical research work during the present summer. This government, as well as the government of Newfoundland, has agreed to carry out much of this research in order to facilitate the work of the committee.
The hon. member pointed out that he had noticed that new hatcheries were being built in the maritime provinces during 1951 and wondered if we had given consideration to such establishments for Newfoundland to plant lake trout and Atlantic salmon. I should like to make the following comments.
(a)	No new hatcheries were built in the maritimes during 1951.
(b)	Under our agreement with the province of Newfoundland, the province is responsible for freshwater fish. The question of hatcheries for lake trout would thus be for its consideration.

(c)	We have had before us representation for salmon hatcheries in Newfoundland. From our knowledge of the present condition of the salmon populations and as a result of the experience gained elsewhere, we are not convinced that hatcheries will be of great benefit. It is our feeling that improvement of access to available spawning grounds, such as is contemplated by the fishways now under construction on the Terra Nova and Humber rivers, will be more productive.
I think I have answered all the questions put forward by the two previous speakers.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, as most of my constituents are fishermen, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to express our sincere thanks to the Minister of Fisheries for the great personal interest he has taken in the problems of Newfoundland fishermen, and to the federal government as a whole for the various forms of assistance provided such as bounties for fishing boats, experimental research and particularly for the deficiency payments on dry shore-cured, salt cod, without which many fishermen would not have been able to meet the cost of production. I feel also that I would be failing in my duty to my constituents if I did not seize this opportunity to lay before this committee the situation that has arisen in my riding owing to the presence of foreign draggers on those fishing grounds upon which shore fishermen depend for their livelihood.
In order to see the picture in its true perspective hon. members must understand that there are in my riding about 45,000 people of whom at least 80 per cent are either directly engaged in the fishing industry or indirectly dependent upon it. Owing to the decline in the bank fisheries and the use of draggers by companies operating fresh fish filleting plants, the majority of those directly engaged in the fishing industry are inshore fishermen.
These inshore fishermen put out from their harbours in the early morning and return in the evening of the same day with their catch. They use a variety of small boats from a 20-foot open boat powered with a 5-horsepower engine and a 2-man crew to a 50-fo'ot decked boat with a 2-dory crew. These boats are not equipped to go long distances offshore and consequently are absolutely dependent upon the inshore fishing grounds for their livelihood.
Unfortunately the largest and best of these inshore fishing grounds lie from five to fifteen miles off shore, well outside the three-mile limit of territorial waters. The grounds themselves average from two to six miles in width and from five to twenty miles in length. The

inshore fishermen have had the exclusive use of these fishing grounds for nearly fifty years and the whole economy of the inshore fisheries and the communities dependent upon them has been based upon the supposition that these fishing grounds would always be available.
1 have gone into all these details for three reasons. First, to show that the presence of draggers denies the use of these grounds to the inshore fishermen. Second, to show that the draggers actually destroy the fishing grounds. This destruction is such that it may take years or even generations before nature can repair the damage. Third, to call attention to the waste inherent in dragger operations generally.
In order to fully appreciate these three points hon. members must understand that inshore fishermen fish with trawls. A trawl is a line from one to five miles long from which at intervals of approximately three feet hooks are suspended on short lines about eighteen inches long. These trawls are set in various directions to cover different depths of water, depending always upon the direction of the wind and of the ocean currents. Trawls are expensive. When draggers are operating nearby, the inshore fisherman dare not risk setting his trawl for fear it will be destroyed by the dragger, in which case a large capital investment would be lost which he would not be able to replace.
On the other hand, the dragger drags over the ocean bottom a large bag-shaped net with a wide open mouth. As it moves over the bottom it tears up everything in its path. It overturns boulders, tears away marine algae and other forms of marine plant and animal life which consolidate the ocean floor and provide breeding and feeding conditions for the various forms of marine life which are essential conditions for a good fishing ground. After being dragged along the bottom for an hour or two the huge net is hoisted to the surface. In it are fish of all varieties and sizes. Much of this fish is already dead-killed by the terrific pressure of being hoisted through the water and the weight of fish one upon the other. The non-commercial varieties are thrown back into the sea. The dead fish sink to the bottom and decay. Many of the commercial varieties are too small to have commercial value. These too are usually dead and are thrown overboard along with the others. The commercial fish are cut and the entrails are thrown overboard to sink to the bottom and add to the pollution.
In my own mind I have always regarded a fishing ground as a sort of marine oasis, a place where the temperatures of the water are suitable and congenial to the fish so that they regard it as a pleasant surrounding
Supply-Fisheries
where they like to come and linger. Picture a fishing ground twenty miles long and five miles wide. Picture a dragger towing its huge net over the ocean bottom, tearing up the loose stones, destroying the plant life and upsetting the balance of nature. Picture the pollution from the decay of thousands of dead fish and fish offal and hon. members will understand that a fishing ground which has well served hundreds of fishermen for hundreds of years, and is capable of serving them well for hundreds of years to come, can be destroyed overnight by the operation of a single dragger and rendered unusable for a whole generation.
Hon. members will understand from what I have said that the dragger method of fishing is not only very destructive but also very wasteful since so many young commercial fish are killed before they have grown to a commercial size and are thrown back into the sea. In my opinion, this waste is sufficiently serious to warrant study by an international commission in the interest of conservation. It may be a long time before the effects of this waste become apparent in vast submarine areas like the Grand Banks, but in my opinion dragger operations on the smaller grounds should be regulated by international agreement, and should be prohibited altogether within thirty miles from shore to protect those inshore fishing grounds upon which the economy of the shore fishery depends.
Our provincial government and the federal government are collaborating with a view to reorganizing the Newfoundland industry so that the fishermen may derive greater benefit from these inshore fishing grounds. There seems little point in encouraging investment in this phase of the industry if the fishing grounds upon which it depends can be destroyed overnight by draggers.
It was foreseen that this menace might develop from the local draggers' operations but nobody ever dreamed that foreign draggers would be involved. However, the unexpected happened and hon. members will recall that last March it was reported to this house that a number of French, Spanish and Portuguese draggers were carrying out operations on inshore fishing grounds in the Rose Blanche area upon which the fishermen there have been dependent for generations. The results were as I have already described.
From the legal standpoint they were perfectly within their rights as long as they kept outside the three-mile limit, and some of them were equipped with radar which enabled them to skim along the edge of the three-mile limit.

Supply-Fisheries
Morally it was a resort to the law of the jungle as a result of which many Newfoundland fishermen with their wives and children will have to go cold, ill-clad and ill-fed during the coming winter. At best it was a thoughtless and selfish act towards a people who had always regarded them as friends, who shared with them the common dangers of wresting a livelihood from the sea, and who had always subscribed to the philosophy of live and let live. At its worst it could be described as an unfriendly act of economic aggression towards a friendly nation that has sacrificed many lives to set Europe free from aggression and has made many substantial contributions of money and materials to aid European recovery.
We must impress upon these foreign governments that Newfoundland is now a part of Canada; that Newfoundlanders are citizens of Canada and that they have every right to expect Canada to protect their interests and to defend them from every form of aggression whether military or economic.
It is quite evident that this problem has international complications, but France and Portugal are partners with Canada in the United Nations and also in NATO. Surely if that partnership is founded on the slightest bit of good will it should be possible to come to some kind of mutual agreement that will prohibit all draggers both local and foreign from operating on those traditional inshore fishing grounds upon which generations of Newfoundlanders have depended in the past and upon which they must depend in the future.
I know that the minister and his colleagues are fully aware of the problem. I trust that before long it will be possible for him to announce that a satisfactory solution has been found and that some sort of agreement has been reached which will safeguard the interests of Newfoundland fishermen.
(Translation) :


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, I hope that I will not be thought too presumptuous for rising so soon after having been officially presented to this house. But I do wish to make a short plea in favour of the fishermen of the county of Gloucester. During the campaign preceding the by-election of May 26 last, I offered the electors of my native county to be their spokesman on the floor of this house. They were so kind as to give me this mandate. Today an opportunity, which I would not like to let pass, is offered me to bring to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) and of

the house, in very cursory fashion I must admit, the case of the Gloucester county fishermen.
Fishing is definitely one of our most important industries. Our ancestors, the old Acadi-ans, descended from those Bretons and Normans from Old France who settled on the coasts of the bay of Chaleur or of the gulf of St. Lawrence after the dispersion, were led to take up fishing, as much from tradition as from necessity. One of our fine folksongs is aptly dedicated to the "Acadian fisherman". Myself a descendant of Acadian forefathers and fishermen, since my forebears, my grandfather and my uncles on my father's side were all fishermen. I cannot resist the temptation of placing on the official record of this house the first stanza of this song, of this ode dedicated to the valour and bravery of the Acadian fishermen of our country.
The sea is my domain;
A son of Brittany, I,
To my beloved ocean,
Do dedicate this strain.
I deem it an honour and a privilege, if not a duty, to utter my first message in this house in the beautiful language of my ancestors, on behalf of the fishermen of my county.
I believe I may state, without fear of contradiction, that it is a long time since the matter of fisheries, in so far as my native county of Gloucester is concerned, has been brought before the house and full consideration has been given to their importance in our economy, to the needs of our fishermen and, more especially, to the remedial action the Department of Fisheries could so effectively and so easily take.
The county of Gloucester is bounded on the north by Chaleur bay and on the east by the gulf of St. Lawrence. Its coast line, including Shippegan and Miscou islands, covers more than 150 miles.
Such nice coastal villages as Green Point, Petit Rocher, Beresford, Salmon Beach, Stonehaven, Grande Anse and Maisonnette, by the clear and blue waters of Chaleur bay, are important fishing and canning centres for lobster, the famous bay salmon, cod1, herring and mackerel.
Between Maisonnette and the villages of Upper Caraquet, in Caraquet bay, there is fishing as well as breeding of the famous Caraquet oysters, which, for a few years now, have had the competition of the not so well-known but just as delicious oysters from the oyster farms of Shippegan and the sur-

rounding area. Every Monday, the fleet of modern draggers sets out to sea from Cara-quet and the whole area of Lower Caraquet as well as from St. Simon and the villages of La-meque and Shippegan for what is known in Acadian language as the "great cod fishing" on the fishing banks of the gulf of St. Lawrence.
Miscou and Shippegan islands do hold, of course, strategic positions as far as fishing is concerned and if the villages of Petite Riviere de l'Ue and Ste. Marie sur Mer were to be given the grants required for the development of their respective harbours, our coastal fishing would expand in such a way as to benefit the whole northern area of Gloucester county.
Similarly I hold that the dredging and the building of harbour facilities at Tracadie-a very important problem which I shall take up again in due course-is necessary if we want to get the maximum yield from our fisheries in the northern part of New Brunswick.
Having given this very cursory and incomplete picture of our maritime position and of the importance of the fishing industry in our part of the country, I now come to the suggestion which I would like to offer to the Minister of Fisheries and which is related to the estimates that are being submitted for our approval.
I had not had a chance to glance at those estimates until the last week end. I find no provision whatever in the estimates for aid or assistance to fishermen, whose ships or fishing gear have been destroyed or damaged by storms. That is a very regrettable oversight indeed. Every year, federal grants and subsidies are meted out to western farmers and fruit growers; if I am not mistaken, last year help was extended to potato growers and again, quite recently, to the western cattle breeders. I have nothing against these grants, but my contention is that the fishermen in the maritimes have been much too long the forgotten children, the orphans, of the federal government.
When I have had enough time to consult the statistics and to gather facts and figures, I shall deem it my duty to reopen the question, in order to prepare a full-length speech in defence of our maritime fisheries.
In my opinion, fishermen are too important to our economic framework and they have to risk too much, assailed by wind and storms in the bay and the gulf, to be deprived of fair and adequate compensation for their losses. These losses are all too frequent. Thus, every winter, every fall, our smelt fishermen lose thousands of dollars when their
Supply-Fisheries
seines are carried away by ice flees. Similarly, salmon, mackerel and herring fishermen suffer enormous losses each year when their nets are damaged or carried away by ocean currents.
On the day following the by-election of May 26, a storm swept the shores of Gloucester-it was perhaps the tail end of the election tide-race that had swept over Gloucester county the previous day-causing our lobster fishermen of Shippegan parish alone losses of between $15,000 and $18,000, according to information I have received from my people.
I therefore feel justified in asking the Minister of Fisheries to give immediate attention to the matter, with a view to setting up- and this is the important point-a system of federal aid to compensate our fishermen for the heavy losses they sustain through storms.
Since there is no hesitation in granting aid to farmers and stock breeders during epidemics, why not give assistance to the fishermen who are constantly victims of the worst plague there is-and I know something about it-storms at sea? I cherish the hope, therefore, that the Minister of Fisheries and his department will be kind enough to consider favourably these more or less scrappy remarks, this hastily prepared plea and that, in the near future, they will take the necessary steps to come to the rescue of our unfortunate fishermen, not only in my constituency of Gloucester, but in the maritimes and all of Canada.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, it was only on the week end that I had my first opportunity to scan- rapidly, I must admit-the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. Representing as I do a constituency in which fisheries occupy such an important place in our economy I decided to rise today, at the risk of appearing to be somewhat presumptuous, so soon after my official introduction in the House of Commons, in order to present a strong plea- unprepared and incomplete though it may be-on behalf of those hardy toilers of the sea, the fishermen of my county and of the maritime provinces. In looking over the estimates of the Department of Fisheries I was amazed to find therein no provision whatsoever for aid or assistance to fishermen who have the misfortune to lose their boats or their gear or to have the same damaged as a result of storms or other whims of this most exacting mistress-the sea.

Supply-Fisheries
My submission to this committee is this. Since the federal government does not hesitate to subsidize the wheat growers, the potato growers, the apple growers or, as is now being done, the cattle breeders or ranchers, why has it never seen fit to give financial assistance to the fishermen who are too often the victims of this unpredictable and most uncontrollable epidemic, a storm at sea. I have definite information that in the province of Quebec, where fisheries are a provincial matter, in case of loss of gear or boats fishermen are being directly assisted by the provincial government. As soon as a loss is reported to the provincial department of fisheries in Quebec, an investigation is carried out; and upon a favourable report being submitted to the department by the provincial inspectors, satisfactory financial assistance is granted to the Quebec fishermen.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I have as yet been unable to prepare a real speech in support of federal aid to our fishermen, but I plan to do so at the first opportunity. However, I respectfully suggest to the Minister of Fisheries and to his department that immediate steps should be taken in order that the too-long-forgotten children-the orphans, may I say-of this federal government, namely the fishermen of my county, of the rest of the maritime provinces and of Canada, may soon be granted the same preferential treatment that has been so generously meted out by this government to the farmers and to the cattle breeders and ranchers. This, Mr. Chairman, is my submission to the minister and his department.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate the new member who has recently come into the house on the presentation he made here today. I noted this morning the statement made by the Minister of Fisheries. He suggested that his department has gone a long way in encouraging a greater production of fish. At this point may I say that a greater production is of little benefit if the prices paid to the fishermen are below the cost of production. That is the matter with which I wish to deal for some little time.
I have carefully scrutinized the estimates of the Department of Fisheries, inasmuch as I had been given to understand that officials of this department have stated that assistance to the fishing industry compares favourably with that which is provided for agriculture. I could at this time go into a long dissertation with regard to comparisons as between the two industries. I shall, however, refrain from doing so to any great extent, as the figures before us will speak for themselves.

The total vote for the fisheries department this year is nearly $10 million. If that figure is broken down it will be found that five-sixths of it or approximately $8,500,000 go to the employees of the department, leaving one-sixth, or $1,500,000 for other purposes connected with the industry; and five-sixths of this remainder, of $1,500,000, does not apply in any way to the province of New Brunswick. I refer to $700,000 for seal skins; $342,500 for bait service for Newfoundland; $240,000 for fisheries support board, Newfoundland, which leaves $160,000 for bounty payments for all the maritime provinces and $150,000 for the construction of draggers in all of the maritime provinces. With regard to the province of New Brunswick, my estimate would be that we would receive less than $100,000, including the bounty payments which cost the taxpayers of this country not one single penny.
In reply to a question which I placed on the order paper some time ago with regard to loans under the farm loan board and the fisheries loan board for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1952, I received the following reply on June 4 from the Minister of Finance: Under the farm loan board, $4,238,400; under fisheries, $800. In other words, for every single dollar fishermen were granted, agriculture was given $5,298. This may be considered to be a fair distribution by some people in this country but I am sure the great majority of Canadians would not look upon it in that light. Just at this point I should also like to put on the record some information which was given to the hon. member for Oxford a few days ago. This was the average amount of government subsidies for the fiscal year 1950-51. In the answer given you will find the following: Department of Agriculture, $120,455,000. Defence production; the only item that came under that department was assistance to the steel industry of about $1,500,000. Subsidies to the provinces averaged about $18,500,000. So far as fisheries is concerned, the total amount paid in 1950-51 was $127,000. The total subsidy paid under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to the Canadian gold mines, however, is near $9 million. I might also add to the ones that I have given the subsidies of the Department of Transport as follows:	Maritime Freight Rates Act,
$8,474,577. The total grant from that department was $8,768,000. The Canadian maritime commission amounted to $14 million. I could go on with many more. These are on the record, however. I believe that when they are compared with the financial assistance given to the fishing industry we will all be

convinced that the fishing industry in this country today is a forgotten industry.
There are many examples I could give to the committee, but as I said previously, I shall refrain from doing that at this time, as I wish to discuss a problem which is of great importance to the whole economy of the county I have the honour to represent.
I refer to the sardine industry, although many other branches of the fishing industry would come within the same category, and they might be described as the depressed industries, particularly our sardine industry and our fishermen who are engaged in the catching of ground fish.
During this session we have heard many suggestions with regard to some type of insurance to protect all types of fishing equipment. Before I get too far away from my main subject, I should like to suggest a way in which an insurance plan might be established, which would give the fishermen some protection, and at the same time the fishermen themselves would be contributing. In no way would this place any financial burden on the taxpayers of this country.
I refer to the $160,000 which is paid in bounties and distributed among thousands of fishermen each year in payments ranging from $5 to $10, regulated of course by the number eligible for payment and by the number of applications received. This bounty is of little assistance to the industry, and although I am not familiar with insurance rates I am convinced that $160,000 would pay the premium on an enormous amount of insurance and give those fishermen a protection which is considered very necessary in other industries but has never applied to the great part of the fisherman's property used in his hazardous calling.
It might be necessary for the government to supplement this payment by some amount, but I suggest it to the department for their consideration, and also to get the reaction from the fishermen themselves. I believe it would be a move in the right direction, and would be endorsed by the majority of the fishermen in the maritime provinces.
I should now like to turn to my main subject which is, as I said, sardines. In doing so I wish to emphasize the importance of this industry to southern New Brunswick. During the past few months the press of the province of New Brunswick has been giving its readers some useful data in connection with our clam industry. They have gone all-out in expressing their anxiety regarding the depletion of our clam flats. We who live in that area are fully aware of the fact that clams are becoming less plentiful, and we all understand why this condition has
Supply-Fisheries
been brought about. During the past six or seven years, for the first time in history, those engaged in this industry have been receiving a fair price for their product. For years clams sold for prices ranging from 80 cents a barrel to $2. However, the price has advanced during these last five or six years to $8, $10 and sometimes to $12 a barrel. These prices induced a greater number to go into the industry. The demand has been really good and the prices are very encouraging.
So far as the depletion of the beds is concerned, we who have been very close to the industry-and by "very close" I mean on a frozen beach with a hoe producing clams -feel that the Department of Fisheries has the right approach to this problem. They plan closing certain areas at different periods. If this is done, our supply of clams will gradually increase, as they grow very rapidly and any danger of depletion, in my opinion, is something we should not be too worried about.


Mr. McLure:: The hon. member is now speaking about soft-shell clams or hard-shell clams?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Hard shell. We all agree that the industry is of great importance, and I would not in any way want to leave the impression that I do not realize that myself.
While this problem was being given substantial publicity in the press I had expected that the sardine industry would certainly be mentioned. Although this industry is of the greatest importance to our province it was apparently taken for granted that all was well, even though the sardine fishermen themselves had been greatly disturbed.
At this point I wish to explain some of the problems these fishermen have had to contend with and briefly describe the particular period within my memory which dates back about forty years. I wish to emphasize the lack of any control whatsoever over this industry by the producers themselves. In some cases, tons of sardines are taken to canneries for samples. The entire lot may be condemned by inspectors. Then the fishermen are paid whatever the canners feel that they wish to pay them. There is no regulation to govern that. I often stop to consider how the canners themselves would regard an arrangement of this character:	for
example, if they sold 10,000 cases of sardines and were paid for 5,000, or if they bargained for $8 a case for the finished product and after delivering the product were paid only $4. These organizations, however, are protected against any such incident. Is it not reasonable to expect that those who produce the raw materials which are so essential to

Supply-Fisheries
the canners should demand the same protection and security? This security and protection which some enjoy, however, has never applied to these primary producers, except in wartime, and then it was applied to protect the canner himself. My first recollection of any type of agreement regarding an established price to be paid for sardines goes back to a period before the first great war. At that time representatives of the sardine fishermen met with the canners during the winter months, which would be previous to the building of their weirs. A price for the coming season was agreed upon, and in many instances individual fishermen would sign a contract with a particular canner for the entire catch of that season. These contracts were entered into in good faith, and in most cases were strictly adhered to.
I point this out to show that forty years ago this industry was much more stable than it is at the present time. We have been going backward rather than advancing, and before I finish I hope to be able to prove that statement to be correct.
I now come to the period of the first great war. This system that I have described continued until 1916, as the year 1915 was the last year I remember when an established price was arranged between the fishermen and the canners. I well remember the price for that year was $15 for the spring season and $10 a hogshead for the summer and fall season. The year 1917 was a year of scarcity. Sardines sold as high as $90 a hogshead in the spring, but before the year was out the price had dropped back to $10 a hogshead. Perhaps 2 per cent of our fishermen received the benefit of the high prices and the other 98 per cent paid it back to the canners before the season was over.
In 1918, the year after this experience, by some international governmental arrangement a price of $25 a hogshead was established; this price held for the season ended November 30 of that year. As the canning period at that time was controlled in the United States-and it is at the present time-the period in which they could operate was from April 15 to November 30. The first year after the war, however-1919-prices again dropped to $5 and $10 a hogshead. Fishermen's unions were formed in an endeavour to cope with the situation, but their efforts were in vain. We drifted along until 1923, taking whatever was offered.
In 1923, another year of scarcity, the prices of sardines climbed in the latter part of the season to $50 and $60 a hogshead. Less than 5 per cent of those engaged in the industry received any benefit from the high price.

And the following year, 1924, those who did not benefit from the high prices in 1923 were held responsible and before that season was completed the $5 and $10 prices prevailed.
In the year 1925, through the efforts of the late P. J. Veniot, the then premier of the province of New Brunswick, a floor price of $10 a hogshead was put into effect. The canners resented government interference, and immediately decided to destroy this protection, not that the price of $10 per hogshead was excessive or unreasonable, but purely as a matter of principle.
I will now explain the methods they employed and how successfully it worked to the canners' advantage. The year 1925, when this arrangement went into effect, happened to be a year of plentiful supply. The canner would send his boats or carriers day after day to the same fishermen, ignoring those in the area around him. It created dissension among the fishermen. A fisherman would feel, "Well, if John Jones can sell his fish, there is something wrong; I am going to sell my fish." They broke up that arrangement inside of six weeks from the time it was established. After this episode we continued to drift with the tide. There was no organization. Fishermen were completely at the mercy of the canners.
Conditions were fair until the thirties. During this period of time sardines were sold in the county of Charlotte for as little as one-tenth of a cent per pound.


Mr. Brooks:: May I ask to what concern in the county of Charlotte those fish were sold? The hon. member spoke about fish being sold in Charlotte county. To what cannery or to what concern were they sold?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: To Connors Brothers and American canneries.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What is the largest concern there?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: There is one large cannery, Connors Brothers, in Charlotte county.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is the chief market there?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: No; I must give Connors Brothers credit. They have paid higher prices at all times than the American canners paid. But the prices have been down-away down.


Albany M. Robichaud: What about McLean's?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That is Connors- the same thing.
Toward the end of the thirties conditions continued to be only fair; and after the outbreak of the second world war a ceiling price of $15 per hogshead was again established. This price was not established to protect the

fishermen, but was established to protect the canners. It was a ceiling price and, as I say, it was to protect the canners.
This was not considered to be too generous a price, but it did stabilize the industry; and while this price was maintained we enjoyed a period of moderate prosperity. After the abolition of the $15 price, which was too low when the subsidy payments had been removed from netting and other fishing equipment, we carried on normally until the past three years. Again we find we have a depressed industry, with very limited markets and abnormally low prices. In fact, the prices are far below the cost of production. There are sardines being sold today in Charlotte country for one third of a cent per pound. And no fisherman can produce fish under present-day conditions at that price.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: So that the price paid in Charlotte county today is a higher price than paid in the Maine canning industry?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Yes, the price being paid by Canadian canners is higher than the price paid by American canners. A few cases have been reported where fertilizer prices were paid. This was in 1950, two years ago. The carrier would take them to the cannery instead and find a market for them in the cannery, putting the difference between the fertilizer price and the cannery price in his own pocket. I am not insinuating that this was any fault on the part of the canner. This was just the work of a selfish employee of the cannery who was out to make what he could for himself.
In 1951 scarcity again was responsible for a fair price being paid to the fishermen; and during the latter part of last year, and during this past winter, weir fishermen and purse seiners were paid $20 per hogshead. This price encouraged the weir fishermen to build weirs again, many of them going in debt for the necessary materials. Before they were completed the price dropped from $20 to $6 or $7.
I believe that during the past winter, when the American canneries were obliged to close, sardines were being canned for them in Canada. This had not happened before in my lifetime. It indicated that their 1951 pack had been sold, and that we might expect a good demand and a fair price in 1952.
Those are the actual facts which led the fishermen to believe that they were comparatively safe in preparing for this season. In many cases this preparation was very costly and entailed an enormous amount of labour. Owing to the quality of the sardines being produced at the present time, the canners have complete control regarding the quantities they wish to pay for, and the amount
Supply-Fisheries
to be paid per hogshead. The price being paid at the present time would be about one third the prices paid last year, or would compare with those paid in 1950.
At this point I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared recently in the Maine Coast Fisherman which, in my opinion, is one of the best fisheries magazines published. This article describes conditions in the Maine sardine industry, which compares favourably with our own industry in southern New Brunswick. This is the June issue, and states:
The following editorial which appeared in the Maine Coast Fisherman, June number, is republished as a matter of interest to local fishermen who sell their product in Maine:
We occasionally hear fishermen grumbling that they have been short-changed for herring which they have sold to a packing plant. As most seiners and weirmen know there is a law on the books supposedly designed to protect the fishermen when selling herring. It reads in part:
"Any person, firm or corporation purchasing herring from a fisherman or his agent shall either pay cash to said fisherman or his agent at the time of the purchase or shall furnish to said fisherman or his agent a written acknowledgment of purchase, containing all information necessary to complete understanding of the transaction, including the price and quantity and providing for payment not later than 7 days after receipt of said herring, and all payments shall be made in money or in money equivalent . . ."
We have checked with the Sea and Shore Fisheries Department about enforcement of this law. It is the department's responsibility. They report that only one fisherman has ever complained to them. When informed that he would have to swear out a complaint against the packer the case was dropped.
As the law stands now it is practically impossible to enforce. There are not enough wardens to supervise every transaction. If a fisherman feels he has not been paid for the full amount of herring that he saw go into the carrier, he must have a warrant sworn out against the packer.
And this is the part I wish to emphasize:
Just as soon as he does that, he promptly loses the market for his fish. As the law now stands it is useless to the fishermen.
The minute he forces the packer to pay for the amount he puts aboard his carrier, the packer puts him on the black list and he is not able to sell his product at all.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I understand the hon. member has been reading from a publication in the state of Maine, and he says that conditions in New Brunswick are similar to those described in that article. Is that the condition in Charlotte county, New Brunswick?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: So far as paying for sardines is concerned.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: So far as controlling the
packers, controlling the industry, controlling the payments to the fishermen and giving them short weight is concerned, those conditions obtain as well in New Brunswick?

Supply-Fisheries


Andrew Wesley Stuart: As I have said, we are able to get a better price from Canadian canners than we can from United States canners.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I understood the hon. member to say that conditions are the same.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The same condition would apply in Charlotte county. The editorial continues:
We think the fishermen will be wise to see to it at the next session of the Maine legislature that this law is repealed. If another law is to be passed in its place it should be set up so that the sea and shore fisheries warden is the complainant just as he is in any short lobster case. This would make spot checking of herring transactions by the wardens somewhat more workable than it is under the present law.
From this editorial one gets a good idea of the complete control by the canner. If the fisherman, the producer, complains or insists on being paid for what he produces he is blacklisted by the canner and the market for his catch automatically ceases.
I should like to point out that as far as agreements are concerned the canners have never been able to agree among themselves. In the past they have had international agreements as to price, but when sardines were in short supply and the demand for the finished products above the average, deceptive methods were employed to break their own agreements. First one and then another canner would suggest to an individual fisherman that he would take short measure if he was given the catch. Or, when the situation was reversed and sardines were in plentiful supply, the canner would suggest to the individual fisherman that he would take his catch if he was prepared to give big measure. This was a most unsatisfactory arrangement in either case as it resulted in instability, breach of contract, lack of confidence or, in other words, general chaos. But in the final analysis it is the producer who pays the bills.
I have endeavoured to give you a true picture of the sardine industry as it has been carried on since I can remember and during the period I have mentioned I was actively engaged in the industry for twenty-three years. The dates I have mentioned are from memory and will be subject to correction if my memory has failed. However, I feel quite confident that they will be found to be substantially correct if checked.
In summing up the complete background of this industry I should like to suggest to the committee, without any fear of contradiction, that a similar set of circumstances could not be found in any other old established industry on this continent and that no other class of
(Mr. Brooks.]
primary producer in Canada have been so completely ignored and left to work out then-own salvation.
These rugged individuals engaged in this industry, the greater percentage of whom I know personally, are not looking for handouts. They have always been ready and willing to take the bitter with the sweet, but when the diet becomes all bitter they wonder if they have a friend anywhere to come to their defence. They realize that from personal experience I should be cognizant of their desperate struggle for survival so it becomes my unenviable duty to place their problem once more before the government in the hope that my presentation will not fall upon deaf ears.
I firmly believe that if anyone is prepared to criticize he should be in position at the same time to offer some constructive solution to the problem involved. For that reason I shall now suggest what in my opinion is the only course to follow in order to bring some semblance of stability to an industry which is now in a depressed condition and whose future is most gloomy indeed. In doing so I am confident that the course I shall suggest will be endorsed by every sardine fisherman in southern New Brunswick and in the state of Maine.
These sardine fishermen on both sides of the border must insist that the fisheries departments of the United States and Canada, together with the canners in both countries, get together immediately so that an opportunity will be provided for representatives of these fishermen to present their views and work out a plan whereby fishermen would be given a fair return for that which they produce. This has been accomplished in the past during the world wars and it was the only period in fifty years when fisherman and canner alike knew where they were going.
A stable price would benefit not only the fishermen, but the canners as well, and many canners I am sure will agree with that statement. A stabilized price would not cost the taxpayers of either country a single dollar. During the periods I have mentioned, when prices were regulated by government action, no subsidies were paid by the government of either country. For example, the margin to the ultimate consumer as between sardines at $10 per hogshead and $20 per hogshead would be approximately 50 cents per case of 100 cans, or one-half cent per can. That differential would appear to be insignificant in so far as the consumer is concerned. It is a fundamental principle from the standpoint of the producer that this

differential may mean the difference between stability and prosperity, on the one hand, and depression and chaos on the other.
At this point I should like to suggest that the canner also has a problem. The supply of sardines to the cannery is most unreliable. There are long periods of scarcity and then there are periods of plentiful supply and for those reasons the cannery must stockpile during the periods when supplies are available in order to take care of their customers over the twelve months. The prices paid for sardines which are stored are of paramount importance to the canner. In the spring a canner may pay $20 per hogshead and store the sardines for three months. Then the price may drop to $10 per hogshead and the cannery purchasing at that time is able to quote lower prices. For that reason the canners try to keep prices at a minimum, never at a maximum, when there is a plentiful supply.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Chairman, at the time the house rose at one o'clock I had described present-day conditions in the sardine industry after a review of a forty-year period. I would like to say at this point that we all realize that there is great competition among the canners on the east coast, and for that reason it is perhaps to be expected that they must purchase their materials at as low a cost as possible.
Again I want to emphasize the fact that the fishermen cannot be blamed for their lack of organization or the lack of assistance received from the fisheries department. If these prices however force more of the fishermen to leave this industry it might have a very harmful effect, and again an answer to the whole problem might be the establishment of more fishmeal plants in this country which would take care of the surplus at all times. Some may say this whole question is purely a question of supply and demand. I would agree with that statement to a certain degree if we were not dealing with an extremely perishable commodity, so much so that it would be impractical or almost impossible to attempt to regulate the supply at any one time. This truism greatly strengthens the argument in support of a fair price policy for these primary producers.
The proposed international gathering which I have suggested to deal with this problem is not a new idea and I have taken the same stand on many different occasions since I came to Ottawa. I should like to quote
Supply-Fisheries
briefly from my remarks as far back as 1945 during my first session as a member of this house. These remarks will be found at page 3657 of Hansard for December 17, 1945. At that time I said, and I was referring to the price support which was being discussed at that time by the agriculture department:
We in the maritime provinces are in a different position from the western farmer. As I have pointed out, we are depending on the American markets for our livelihood. Therefore nothing but an international agreement would be sufficient to give us the protection I feel we deserve.
I am personally acquainted with most of the Maine canners and fish buyers, and knowing them as I do, and knowing the friendly feeling that exists on this border, I feel confident this could be done by the two countries agreeably to the fishermen on both sides.
I trust the department realizes the importance, indeed the necessity, of an agreement of this kind' and will work with the fishermen and the fisheries department in the United States to have an international agreement as to floor prices that will meet with the approval of all concerned.
We all realize I believe that these problems in many cases are deemed to be of a local nature and do not affect any great areas, but I would like to say that this particular industry means much to the whole economy of the county I represent. I would say that 25 per cent of the people in that county are engaged directly or indirectly in the fishing industry.
So far I have described conditions under which we have carried on in that industry on the Atlantic seaboard. In conclusion, I would like to describe conditions on the Pacific coast where these primary producers have some control over their own affairs.
Before a seine or net is put in the water in British Columbia an established price has been arranged with the canners and fish meal manufacturers for the entire season; not for a short period but for the whole season. We had a similar arrangement on the Atlantic coast more than forty years ago, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks today, but that arrangement has been discarded and conditions have worsened rather than improved since that time.
Fish or herring for fish meal delivered to factories in British Columbia by the fish producers are worth about $30 per ton or $18 per hogshead in our measure. Compare these prices with prices being paid for fish meal on the Atlantic coast line. If we had unlimited markets for any kind of fish at these prices being paid in British Columbia our worries would be over. The British Columbia herring fishermen receive 100 per cent more for herring going into the manufacture of fish meal than we receive for sardines which are canned on the Atlantic coast line and go into food. If the herring and sardines which were of poor quality at different periods during

Supply-Fisheries
the past years could have been used in the manufacture of fish meal at the prices paid in British Columbia our industry in New Brunswick and Maine would have prospered rather than have become depressed.
If this old established industry is to survive we must have international agreements between producers and processors in southern New Brunswick and the state of Maine. The fisheries departments of these two great countries must be held responsible for any unnecessary delay in rectifying this glaring example of injustice. If the course I have suggested is not followed by the fisheries department our young men on our three large islands, Deer island, Campobello, Grand Manan, and along our entire coast line must leave their homes and seek better living conditions elsewhere.
If a set of conditions such as I have described could be found anywhere in the agricultural industry., officials of that department and sufficient funds would be made available immediately to investigate, and a remedy would be found without delay to take care of the situation. I suggest most sincerely that the fisheries department should be held responsible and any delay is not necessary. There are officials all through this section working for the department who know that the conditions I have outlined today are exactly as I have described. Information that might be necessary for the department to take some action in this regard must be already in the hands of those officials. The fishermen themselves are demanding that some action on the part of the department be taken. I would trust that the delay would not be unnecessarily long and that the situation might be investigated within a reasonable time.
At the same time a full-scale investigation into the spread between prices paid fishermen for ground fish such as cod, pollock and haddock and consumer prices might be in order. That might also apply to the prices consumers are obliged to pay in all parts of Canada for fish products. The great spread between the prices paid the producer and those paid by the consumer is something that should have been investigated long ago. The variation is too great between what the producer receives and the price that is being asked today of the consumers in this country. Such an investigation, I am sure, would bring to light a differential of most unfair proportions.
I regret that the time at my disposal will not allow me to go into this most important subject to a greater extent. An investigation,

however, would I am sure be wholeheartedly approved of and supported by those engaged in the industry.
In conclusion, may I emphasize the fact that the action which I have suggested on the part of the Department of Fisheries is long overdue. We have always supported any assistance given to any other primary producers in Canada. I believe we have every reason, therefore, to expect some consideration to be given to those engaged in the fishing industry on the Atlantic coast.


Mr. Gillis:: I have a few remarks I should like to make on this item, Mr. Chairman. First, I should like to compliment the member for Charlotte. He gave us not only a very factual speech, but a well reasoned speech. Of course, being a practical fisherman himself, he knew his subject and placed it before the house in a very comprehensive way. I consider that in the last few years the Department of Fisheries has made a lot of progress, compared with what it was when I first came into this house. When I came here, the industry was really the forgotten industry. The question of fisheries was seldom raised in the house, and up until the last few years, from what one could gather, the fisheries department was the convenient spot in which to place a minister while he was waiting to be appointed a judge. In that way the fishing industry as a whole received very little consideration, and was really the forgotten industry.
In the last few years I consider that that department has made progress. For example, during this session the fisheries committee was perhaps one of the busiest committees. It sat continuously, and dealt with many phases of the industry. Previously that committee would only be called together about once every two years to find out if we could change the label on a can of salmon or something like that. This session that committee was very busy, and I think any member who sat on it will agree that we received a lot of valuable information about the fishing industry. I know that, as one member of the committee, I did. The present minister has at least been going around the country trying to acquaint himself with the industry. I am reasonably sure that the present deputy minister, whom we have all had occasion to meet or correspond with from time to time, is in the process-now of tying up the industry on a national basis; something that has never been attempted before.
As the member for Charlotte points out, the industry still requires considerable analysis. Like every other industry ini North

America today, the fishing industry is undergoing a process of technological advance. It is becoming a mechanized industry. Anyone who reads the evidence the deputy minister gave in his first statement to the committee can see that clearly. The day of the hand line shore fisherman has just about passed. Of course, this advance is going to hurt some people, and the impact of it should be lessened as much as possible. I believe the impact could be lessened if some of the suggestions made by the member for Charlotte were implemented.
There are just two things I want to mention. First, I believe that the recommendations made by the member for Charlotte with regard to the $160,000 bounty should be taken into consideration. This amount of money, which serves very little purpose today, should be utilized as an insurance premium in order to guarantee the fishermen against the hazards of the industry. This $160,000 bounty is fixed by statute, and the department cannot play around with that. Actually, it means about $6 per man per year, so in the final analysis it is nothing. As someone said this morning, it will not even buy a good bottle of Scotch today. At one time it would buy two bottles, but today it will not even buy one good bottle. The regulations under which that money is paid are very inflexible. A fisherman has to have his application in by the January deadline, and then the amount of money which each fisherman receives is based upon the number of applications. In many cases the fishermen in the remote sections, far from post offices, do not get their application in and do not share in the $6 payment. I think a much more useful way of handling that would be the way suggested by the member for Charlotte. An insurance premium should be paid, even if the government has to add to the amount, in order to provide hazard insurance for those engaged in the industry.
Coming from the Atlantic coast as 1 do, I know that last year the fishermen suffered severe losses along the coast line. On at least two occasions they lost complete sets of gear, and that is a severe loss to the average fisherman. His means of livelihood are swept away overnight, and he is not in any position to replace the equipment. He certainly should be insured against that kind1 of hazard. If something like that is not done, then I believe the regulations under which this bounty is paid should' be investigated. This amount of money is ridiculous for the purpose it is supposed to serve. It should not be statutory because it is fluctuating from year to year. If a bonus is going to be paid in that way, and for that purpose, then the government should look at the need as it fluctuates from
Supply-Fisheries
year to year, and at least allow sufficient latitude to administer the program in a way to provide the best relief. As it is now, I do not think it serves a useful purpose.
The second thing I should like the minister to comment upon when he replies is the enforcement of an old law, particularly as it applies to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. In the past trawlers, draggers and fishing vessels of various sorts from other countries such as Portugal and Spain had the privilege of entering Halifax, Sydney, North Sydney and those coastal ports in order to purchase supplies. There has been a law against that procedure for a good many years, but it was never enforced. Within the last year the department has undertaken to enforce the law so that the foreign fishermen are prohibited from entering Halifax, Sydney and North Sydney to purchase supplies and so forth. An exception has been made, however, in the case of Newfoundland. These foreign fishermen can still go there to purchase supplies. I do not believe the department can justify that.
Either the law is good and can be enforced one hundred per cent as it applies to any section of the country, or it is no good and should be repealed. In view of the fact this law has not been enforced for a good many years, many people in these towns I have mentioned have built up a business on the waterfront on the strength of being able to get this trade when the foreign ships came into port. I should like the minister to tell us what the intention of the department is. Do they intend to enforce that law so far as Nova Scotia coast ports are concerned and leave Newfoundland as it is, or do they intend to revise the regulation altogether in order to bring some unity into its application? I am not quarrelling, mind you, or expressing an opinion about the value of the complete enforcement of that regulation. If I was asked for my untutored opinion with regard to the matter, I would say that the enforcement of the regulation-while it might do some harm temporarily to some people carrying on business-over the long pull would be much in the interests of the industry. But it is not my business to make these regulations or to enforce them. I suggest to the minister that if the regulations are going to be enforced, it should be done impartially. No section should be exempted. If the regulations are not going to be enforced, they should not be enforced in any part of the country.


Mr. Ashbourne:: What about St. Pierre and Miquelon?

Supply-Fisheries


Clarence Gillis: We do not have much to do with St. Pierre and Miquelon.


Thomas Gordon William Ashbourne: They are near to Newfoundland.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member means keep them out of there also?


Thomas Gordon William Ashbourne: We could not do that.


Clarence Gillis: I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that North Sydney and Halifax should get the same kind of law, as it applies to vessels coming in and making purchases, as Newfoundland is getting at the present time. Of course I realize that the Department of Fisheries is rather supernumerary in the matter of Newfoundland fisheries, when consideration is given to the fisheries commission in Newfoundland, the powers they have, and the restrictions with regard to becoming a member of the fisheries commission. If I were the minister I imagine I would figure that, with regard to Newfoundland, I was merely attached for rations and discipline, when consideration is given to the scope of that commission which has been perpetuated for ten years under the terms of confederation. But that is another argument altogether and I am not going to enter into it. In fact, it is none of my business. We shall let the premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Smallwood, work this thing out.
The two things on which I wish the minister to comment are, first, the fishing bounty, and what is going to be done about it; and second, how are we going to enforce the regulations with regard to these foreign ships making purchases in the ports that I have mentioned?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Mr. Chairman, probably I should answer some of these questions before I get too far behind. First I should like to reply to a question that was asked of me on the orders of the day yesterday by the hon. member for Cumberland. The question was with regard to extension of the lobster season in that area. We find that this year to date there has been a slightly lower catch of lobsters than there was last year, although not a great deal. We have therefore not fully made up our minds yet just what we will do. But if there is any extension-and it is likely that there will be some-it will apply to the whole of that district, not just to one part of it. Our announcement will be made shortly.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: Can the minister state when the announcement will be made?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: It will be made by the first of next week at the latest, but probably this week.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo made an extremely interesting speech. He dealt with two important problems, one of which is the danger to stocks from the use of draggers. I think probably there has now been sufficient experience in the use of draggers to determine whether or not there is a depletion of the stock in the areas where draggers are being used. That question has to be constantly examined and reports made. The information we have to date is that the use of draggers has not in general diminished the supply, although if there is constant use of draggers in a small area around the shore the condition might easily be somewhat different. That position will be watched carefully.
The other matter to which the hon. member referred was the extension of territorial waters. I have repeatedly stated in the house that, with regard to the conservation of fish, the three-mile limit was not satisfactory. However, the extension of territorial waters is an international matter and would require agreement by many other nations. The question of the stocks of fish comes within the competency of the international commission for the north Atlantic fisheries, that will be holding its second session in St. Andrews at the end of this month. At the present time the commission is examining the position in area No. 5, which is George's bank. Other areas will receive the attention of the commission from time to time.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Gloucester on his maiden speech. We were glad to hear him and to realize that he is interested in the fisheries of his riding. I wish to assure him that we too are greatly interested in that area. He spoke particularly about insurance for fishermen's boats. He also spoke about lack of assistance. I should like to advise him that in his own county we have given a subsidy to some 38 boats, to a total of approximately $167,000, which was $165 a ton. Every one of those boats is insured. They are insured for protection. The provincial government gives them a loan. We give them a grant. Our grant is insured for a period of five years, but the boat is insured until the provincial loan is paid off. It is therefore possible to get insurance on certain types of boats.
I will agree, however, that there are many smaller boats with gasoline engines on which it is virtually impossible to get insurance; at least the rate for insurance is so high that the fishermen could not afford to carry insurance on a small boat. I should like to inform the hon. member for Gloucester and other hon. members that at the present time

we have three men from our economics branch set aside to study the possibility and the probability of bringing into force insurance on boats.
Personally, I have considered that the lives of the fishermen and the boats they work in are the two main things to be taken care of. If it is at all possible to provide some insurance which I hope will be a three-way insurance; that is, where the fishermen, the provincial government and the federal government take part in providing insurance, at the start, on men's lives and on the boats that they sail in. Later on, if it is possible to include the gear, that can be done but it will probably be well after my time. However, I want everyone to be assured that the lot of these people who harvest this valuable food from the sea is one with which we are concerning ourselves.
The hon. member for Charlotte brought out the idea-and it was referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton South-that the $160,000 that is paid as a bounty should be used for insurance purposes. In the hon. member's own riding there are 146 boat owners and 181 fishermen working on the boats, or a total of 327 men, in the county of Charlotte who are getting some of this money. In the whole of the maritime provinces there are 14,358 men. It would be very difficult to get all of these men to agree to cancel their right, which amounts to a little more than $6 apiece; it amounts to $9.55 each. That is what it amounted to last year.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South said that it was a variable amount. It is not exactly a variable amount; it is the interest on $4 million. That is the amount on which the interest is based. I think it would be difficult to get an agreement from the 14,358 fishermen that their money should be used to pay for insurance on boats when perhaps a good many of these men do not own any boats at all. There is also $1 a ton on the vessel itself that goes to the vessel owners. They could easily apply that, if they wished, to this purpose. However, it is a matter of their own desire as to whether they would like it to go to pay insurance on their boats. There would be great difficulty in getting all these men to agree to the use of that money for that purpose. I take it that this is not an instance where the majority should rule. In this instance the individual should have some rights.
The hon. member for Charlotte did make a very useful speech. He is a man who knows the fishing industry very well. A good many of the suggestions that he put forward will be seriously considered. He, too, advocated the principle that the $160,000 should be used 55704-217
Supply-Fisheries
for the purpose of insurance. He spoke of the price of sardines. The price of sardines is a competitive one in the tinned fish trade. In the first place, the plants in his own district have to compete with the sardines and can-ners from the state of Maine, and that competition is pretty keen. They likewise have to compete with Norway, Sweden and many other countries that are putting up sardines and have been doing it for quite a long time. Right in the heart of one fishing community that I visited not so long ago I saw Norwegian sardines and our own fishermen ready to buy them. It is a very competitive article, and a good deal of it is sold in the cheaper markets. They are put up in a tin that a man can put into his lunch kit, and that composes the main portion of his lunch.
The hon. member spoke of the competition and implied that some of the canners were not living up to their contracts. 1 think that if any of our Canadian canners were not living up to their contracts the fishermen would very soon complain about it, and they would have recourse to the courts to collect from them. But I think he was referring mainly to the Maine canners, and over them we have of course no control whatever.
The hon. member brought up another matter which I think I should reply to. He mentioned that the amount in the estimates before us is approximately $10 million. It is a little less than that, and he compared that with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, and said that ours is so much smaller. Well, I am not going to say that we are doing everything for the fishermen that we would like to do. I suppose the Minister of Agriculture would say the same about agriculture. But we should at least remember this. The total value of the fisheries to Canada last year, including Newfoundland, was $200 million. On the other hand, the total value of agriculture to Canada is $2 billion. There is a vast difference. If you compare the $10 million that we have with the $60 million that agriculture has, you will see that it is not too far out of line, but more than the $10 million that is in our estimates goes for that type of work. If you want to take in everything that we do for fisheries you will have to examine your estimate books in relation to your various communities or provinces and you will find large sums of money in there for the building of wharves, for breakwaters, for fishermen's floats, and for a great many other items.
The item of $80,625 for price support was referred to. That is only the administrative item. It is not what is actually spent for price support. However, I am not finding

Supply-Fisheries
fault with the hon. member for bringing up these questions. I appreciate it very much, and it will get very careful consideration.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South referred to foreign vessels having a base for their operations on our coasts. This is not a regulation, as was referred to by the hon. member; it is an act of parliament, the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act. I agree with him that it does need revision. He says that it has not been enforced. It was enforced very rigidly up until the beginning of the first war when, by order in council, there was some relaxation. It had been enforced I think rather indifferently between the two wars and since the last war. However, the act is so strenuous in its application that if one of those foreign vessels were picked up we would have no option but to confiscate the vessel itself. That, I think, would be rather unfortunate. When this was brought up about a month ago it was the first time, in my experience. Things have changed considerably since the act was passed. There were days when shore bases in this country were much more valuable to foreign countries than they would be today, when there are modern boats with a much greater tonnage, and with much greater sailing speeds. There is also the difference that, since Newfoundland came into confederation, by the terms of union, Newfoundland was permitted to continue furnishing these boats with supplies.
Then there has been another change. The islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon are owned by France, and they have allowed the boats of some European countries to base there. This is a point that has changed the picture considerably.
We have been asked what we are going to do about the act, and the answer is that we are going to discuss the matter with other departments vitally interested, with a view to a revision of the act. We would hope that this revision of the act, whatever it may be, will be done in sufficient time to enable people on the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick coasts to make preparations to have supplies ready for the boats, should we find it desirable to make the change in the act.
However, this is not something that can be done lightly, because a number of factors are involved. When we give shore rights to a foreign country, we give to them the full advantage Canada has in respect to its proximity to the fishing grounds. In extending this privilege we would be giving away the locational advantage our fishermen have, and, I suggest, we have a right to expect something valuable in return for that.
[Mr. Mayhew.j
Before taking my seat I should like to make one further observation, in the hope that those who are interested will pay some attention to it. We prohibit our own nationals from fishing in their larger boats inside the twelve-mile limit, while foreign boats can come in to the three-mile limit. I would hope that the foreign boats coming in and having the privilege of using our ports would at least recognize the regulations we have placed upon our own draggers and trawlers.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one or two comments on this first item. The hon. member for Gloucester dealt this morning with some of the problems of the maritime fishermen, and this subject was also discussed by other hon. members, in particular the hon. member for Charlotte and the hon. member for Cape Breton South.
As the first member of the official opposition to speak, following the speech of the hon. member for Gloucester, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate him upon the showing he made this morning. His speech augurs well for the valuable contribution he will be able to make as time goes on.
The minister dealt with certain matters of administration, and referred specifically to the possibility of insurance. His declaration was one which all hon. members will welcome, and which we believe is necessary. Some steps in that direction are past due, and I am glad to know the minister is giving the matter consideration. In my opinion some action should be taken.
Of course that is only part of this general problem confronting the fishermen, and particularly the inshore fishermen, those operating on smaller capital and with the small boats. I noticed a while ago an announcement by the Department of Labour in which it was said that it was impossible to apply unemployment insurance to the fishing industry. I think that is a wise decision; in view of the number of share men operating on the larger boats, and the number operating in smaller boats, I should think it would be virtually impossible to do anything for them that would be beneficial by way of unemployment insurance.
Someone may say that there is a sick mariners fund. Although I have no direct knowledge in the matter, it may well be that the sick mariners fund would serve a useful purpose in respect of those fishermen operating out of Lunenburg, or those other ports where one finds the large trawlers, and other heavy equipment going out for purposes of deep-sea fishing. But this does not apply in respect of line fishermen operating out of the little ports along the coast-or if it does

operate at all, then only in a very few cases. Those men own their own small boats. They simply go out into the bays and return at nights. My understanding is that in order to qualify for treatment they have to be taken sick while aboard, and the fact is that most of them are at home when sickness befalls them. Thus the fund is absolutely useless to them.
I say there should be some study given to working out a program equivalent to that of workmen's compensation. I realize that workmen's compensation is a provincial responsibility, and that it is administered by the provinces. But it must be kept in mind that the fisheries come within the jurisdiction of the federal government. In my view we should make a study of the system. For instance, I have seen fishermen whose hands have been punctured by hooks, and where blood poisoning has set in. Those men have been laid off for months, and without receiving one red cent. Their earning capacity is ruined for the rest of their lives.
I know those fishermen do believe that some such system could be invoked. I would hope that departmental officials might give further consideration to this matter, and that when he speaks again this afternoon the minister might make reference to it. Or, if he would consider the matter, and speak about it at another time, I would be happy then to hear what he would have to say.
The minister made another interesting statement this afternoon when he referred to the draggers. I understood him to say that there was no evidence as yet that the operations of draggers had resulted in a depletion of stocks, but that study would be given to the matter, and if they were satisfied that this depletion had taken place some appropriate action would be taken. I can recall raising this matter of draggers and trawlers three or four years ago when I first came to the House of Commons, and that at that time the then minister gave exactly the same answer. He said there was no evidence that the draggers and trawlers were depleting the stock in any way, but that, if they were, action would be taken.
I notice that in a report which appeared in the Halifax Herald on January 7 of this year the minister's own officials made some comments in this connection. The article quotes Dr. Needier, director of the fisheries biological station at St. Andrews, and Dr. Templeman, director of the fisheries research station of Newfoundland, as making reference to the work which the trawlers and draggers are doing on the banks, and they make reference to the effect on stocks when, for instance, two Spanish trawlers sweep 55704-217i
Supply-Fisheries
together. They make the statement that the evidence indicates that this is prejudicial to the stock of haddock.
I suggest that if in the opinion of experts there is evidence that these trawlers operating on the banks are depleting the haddock stock, it is a fair inference that the smaller draggers operating in narrower waters would also damage the stock. I can assure the minister of this, that it will require all his eloquence, logic and charming personality to convince the fishermen along the bay of Fundy that this is not the result. It may be coincidental with the shortage of haddock, but many of the people down there hold the belief that these draggers and trawlers are definitely prejudicial to the industry.
The minister pointed out a moment ago that our own draggers and trawlers are required to keep twelve miles off the coast, whereas foreign vessels may come within three miles, and that that is a matter to which he has given attention. I think it is time that special attention was given to this matter because, as I have said before and as the minister undoubtedly knows, there are departmental reports to show that at times these boats do come within the three-mile limit and operate close to the shore line, in fact so close that they drag up lobster traps which are set a few hundred feet from the coast. The excuse is always that they have been lost in the fog. I certainly regret that lack of navigational skill which permits them to get lost, and still avoid going on the rocks entirely. The only ones they are putting on the rocks are the fishermen whose gear and fish are being destroyed. I think definite action should be taken in this regard.
Reference was made to the extension of the coastal waters. I think there is a good legal argument, certainly a practical argument which could be advanced for the declaring of the bay of Fundy as being inland waters. I understand certain peace treaties would be involved. I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs will agree that in the discussions which took place many years ago between Great Britain, which was then looking after our foreign affairs, and the United States that matter was left open. If the departmental officials would go into this and see that it was raised at a conference I think that they would find that action could be obtained.
While I realize that there is logic and force-in his argument, I hate to accept entirely the statement of the hon. member for Cape Breton South that because this industry is being mechanized the little people are being forced out entirely. I admit that that is true in connection with deep-sea fishing.

Supply-Fisheries
Those of us from Nova Scotia will remember the bitterness of the discussion twenty years or more ago when we had the controversy as between trawlers and schooners and the rest. That matter was settled because of economic necessity; that era is past.
But all along the coast are many small villages which are supported by fishing operations from small boats which go out into the bay of Fundy or probably in waters in other parts of Canada. That phase of the industry cannot be mechanized. You have an ideal situation in the bay of Fundy and if proper steps were taken to stop the operations of trawlers and draggers the small hand-line fisherman would be able to earn his living and support his family and community as he has supported them for generations. With the regulations that now exist and the circumstances under which they now operate, unless something is done all these communities along the bay of Fundy and in the southwestern part of the province are going to be threatened with extinction. I urge that action be taken in this connection.
I do not want to take up the time of the committee any longer except to refer to one other matter which has already been before the house, the damage which was done to the fishing industry last winter by the serious storms which occurred at that time. The minister has referred to the possibility of some insurance scheme being worked out to cover the boats. That would be most helpful, but in this series of storms, which were almost continuous, almost complete economic disaster was faced by fishermen all along the coast of Nova Scotia.
Speeches were made in the house by the hon. member for Halifax, the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth, the hon. member for Charlotte, and I think I made a contribution myself, urging that action be taken. I am sorry to see that as far as the main estimates are concerned there is no item which I can relate to the disaster which these people suffered. Possibly something will be included in the supplementary estimates, and I think we should be told whether there will be an item there. We have heard the logical appeals made by hon. members representing various constituencies and some action should be taken.
I was reading a statement made in the other place by an hon. gentleman from New Brunswick who at one time was a cabinet minister in the government of that province, and it certainly was not a Conservative government. He said that in so far as the maritimes are concerned apparently God worked in a different way than for the rest of Canada. When an act of God occurred down there it was considered to be the fault

of the people and nothing could be done about it, whereas the government apparently felt it had some responsibility for the acts of the Divinity in the rest of Canada. That was a statement made in the other place.
In answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth the parliamentary assistant said that the matter was under investigation. Then the minister stated that there had been no request from Nova Scotia with regard to this. I have here a long and indignant statement by the minister of trade and industry of Nova Scotia which deals with the whole situation. He states that this matter is the responsibility of the federal government and that he has asked that action be taken.
It is true, as some have suggested this morning, that this industry has not received the same support which other industries have received, but I do not agree for a moment with the hon. member for Charlotte that, because agriculture has received certain treatment, fishing should receive parallel treatment or be considered on the same basis. Farmers suffer crop failures, and at least in the east they do not receive any money for it. They suffer from storms and various other things and receive no money. I think the minister was right when he said that in so far as the economic value of the product was concerned, agriculture was not receiving proportionately more than fishing.
If an economic disaster such as this had occurred to some other industry in some other part of Canada I think it would have been received much more sympathetically than this particular situation. I think the minister should state just where this matter stands, just what is being done or what will be done with respect to it. Scores and scores of fishermen have lost virtually all their capital. They have lost their boats, they have lost their gear, and in many cases, as the Minister of Public Works well knows, the wharves in their villages were lost. We do hope that some of these will be replaced so they can carry on.
This matter should receive consideration. We have heard it said that this industry is an orphan, but this government which is now in power should look after it. We realize that the minister is taking an interest in this industry and has travelled around the country, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South has said, probably more than any other minister. But no matter how sympathetic or how intellectual the consideration given to this matter may be, that alone will not solve the economic problems of these people. I ask the minister and the department to give these matters careful consideration and see that action is taken at the proper time.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Mr. Chairman, I think I should answer the hon. member right now. The province of Nova Scotia asked that a survey be made by the department of the storm losses in that province. That was completed last month. I am now informed that there has arrived at my office an official request from Nova Scotia for assistance. We have not had time to consider that so I do not know what it contains.
At the earlier request of the provincial government a thorough survey was made of the losses. The bulk of the losses were made up of lobster traps. The number of traps reported lost in the storm is given at 155,000, or 30 per cent of the total owned by fishermen. These traps would be worth about $1 million but it is understood that many of the traps lost were old. There are of course always some losses, so that only a proportion of this year's loss can be considered to be above normal. The government has just received a submission from the provincial government based on the facts as now known.
The lobster catch in Nova Scotia for the first four months of this vear was 4 [DOT] 7 million pounds as compared with 5-7 million pounds in the same period in 1951. With better prices, however, the value of the catch this year was $2,256,000 compared with $2,121,000 a year ago. That is the position today and I can assure hon. members that due consideration will be given to the provincial government's request.


Mr. Gibson:: I just want to address a few remarks to the minister as the Minister of Fisheries and also, I hope, as a minister from British Columbia.
As he will realize, our province is having its share of difficulties these days. We seem to have strikes in lumber and amongst our carpenters, and there is also threat of a strike in fisheries out there. We have all those troubles which have also been complicated by what I might suggest was "hoof-and-Hansell" disease out there. I know the minister will be particularly interested and probably the fisheries research board will be interested to note that they catch the biggest crop of suckers with bait of just straight corn.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Lambert Gibson: However, getting back to a serious vein, I must say that the threat of the fisheries strike out there is very serious and it seems to me that both sides would be very interested in the remarks which the minister made today. I felt, however, that the minister was somewhat reticent. I can quite understand his not wanting to take part in what appears to be a labour dispute, but it seems to me that with the type of fishery there is in British Columbia it is a little different
Supply-Fisheries
from the ordinary fisheries dispute. I do not think either the fishermen or the operators out there can claim any fishery. I think the people of Canada can claim that it is one of their assets. It would seem to me that the minister might have gone considerably further than he did this morning and given both sides of the dispute some factual information which he must have and which is available either in his department or through the Department of Trade and Commerce who always have surveys of market conditions in Canada. They will know the true picture of the stocks of canned salmon on hand. It seemed to me that on going into a new packing season with this very substantial carryover we would all be very interested to know just how he feels about it.
As I said, I do not feel that he would be taking part in what might ordinarily be termed an industrial dispute if he were to give us that. As the minister realizes, fish are not like timber. If we have a strike in the timber industry naturally we have a tie-up of timber while the strike goes on, but that is not so with salmon on the Fraser river. I am speaking here particularly of sockeye salmon.. Great steps have been taken in the conservation and propagation of the run on the Fraser river so it seems to me we should see what can be done to assist, as this asset belongs to the Canadian people as a whole. The minister knows that if these beds get more salmon than they can take there is actual harm done to the fishery.
As we all know the Americans are going to get their share of the catch and I would like to be sure that we, through our fisheries department, are acting in the interest of the Canadian people by trying to take what steps are possible to ensure that Canada gets its share this year, whether or not the fish operators and the fishermen get together out there. I would be very anxious to see the minister have a senior representative of his department out there while the negotiations are going on. I would like him to provide some factual information regarding the market, which I think would be very helpful in this case.
I was glad when the minister replied to the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena the other night. I too feel that fishermen in many cases pay sales tax on commercial gear when they should not have to. I realize that there are difficulties of administration of which we are quite well aware, and I am sure the department is doing everything possible to see those difficulties are adjusted. I would just ask the minister to use his good offices to see that sales tax is removed from commercial fishing gear in every possible case.

Supply-Fisheries
Coming from the Pacific coast I think I should say a word about the passing of Mr. Frank Tait of the minister's department, who was district supervisor at Nanaimo and who served the department with distinction for so many years. It is a matter of great regret to us there that he passed away so suddenly.
In conclusion I would like to commend the officials of the department for what I maintain is very efficient administration on the Pacific coast. That is the only place where I am familiar with their activities, and I can assure you it is excellent.


George Randolph Pearkes: This morning the minister referred to the carryover of the pack on the west coast. While he was not able to say the extent of that carryover it is obvious that it is very considerable. I wonder if the minister could tell us now what steps his department is taking to assist that situation, particularly in view of the difficult labour situation which has arisen on the Pacific coast and to which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has just referred. I wonder whether every possible endeavour has been made to find avenues by which the carryover can be disposed of. It occurs to me that possibly the armed forces should have an opportunity to use some of that carryover, and I would like to know if the minister has investigated that possibility. Would he tell us what steps his department is taking?
I would also like to add my tribute to Mr. Tait, who passed away only a few weeks ago. He was known to all of us on the Pacific coast and was very highly regarded not only by officials of the department but by the fishermen of the whole area.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I am sure the family of Mr. Tait will be very pleased to learn of the kind remarks by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Nanaimo. Similar remarks have already been passed on to the family by myself and by the department.
May I at this moment refer to another member of the department whom we lost and who has been a very close friend for a number of years. I speak of Mr. Hanson, who was a member of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission. Olof Hanson, once a member of this house, made a considerable contribution to British Columbia and to Canada. Although he had a good living out of Canada, he made sure that wherever he was, no matter what position he held, he left the country better than he found it.
Both hon. members have spoken about our canned salmon position. Last week the canned salmon operators had two representatives in Ottawa, and we spent a good many

hours with them going over their problems and canvassing any plans that might be helpful to them. They left the city the night before last, and I am quite sure they are satisfied that if there is anything this department can do we will do it.
I did not mention the amount of the carryover, because I do not think they would appreciate that. It is not something they would reveal in the ordinary course of business, so I do not think it would be right to mention it here. Anyone who is interested can easily make a fairly close calculation and see that it is a considerable amount. Last year the pack was a little over 2 million cases. Because of the exchange situation the industry will not be able to send any more salmon to the United Kingdom this year. A large sum of money has been spent in trying to promote the sale of salmon in Canada. The industry has spent almost $350,000 and the individual canners are spending another $350,000, making a total of $700,000 spent in promoting the sale of canned salmon within Canada. As a result of that expenditure considerably more than the usual amount of canned salmon has been marketed domestically.
If the expected pack of approximately a million and a half cases is realized this year, that is providing the fishermen go to work, there could be a substantial carryover again at this time next year. I do not think that I should say any more than that. I believe everyone in British Columbia realizes that the stocks are high. They realize also that the price of canned salmon is high, and that it is difficult to make sales at high prices. I believe that with the good judgment of all concerned they will be able to get together and straighten this out without a strike. I do not feel I should say more than that at the present time.


Thomas Gordon William Ashbourne: I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to say that I appreciate the work which has been done by the fisheries department, and also to pay tribute to the minister himself. As one who has the honour of representing possibly the third largest riding in Canada, and the one with the longest shore line, I think that my remarks at this time are in order. I should like to refer particularly to the Labrador coast, and to point out to the minister the need for protecting the salmon rivers. I would suggest that fishery guardians be appointed there, as is the case in Newfoundland.
I should like also to mention the serious decline in the Labrador fishery. In 1935 that fishery produced about 400,000 quintals of fish, that is floaters and shore fishermen together. Last year I believe the catch was down to less than one-third of that, or

approximately 130,000 quintals. That is a serious decline in the Labrador fishery. As the house may remember I brought this matter to the attention of the department last year when the fisheries estimates were under consideration. I do not know what can be done about the matter, but I believe that last year the shore fishery produced about
700,000	quintals. In view of the extent of the trawling and dragging operations which are being conducted on the banks of Newfoundland, I believe we can reasonably look forward to the time when our fishermen will have to go farther afield in order to secure the catch of fish needed by the Canadian people, in fact by the whole world, as a source of food.
So far as Labrador is concerned, I should like to point out that every spring seal fishing takes place along the Labrador coast and the strait of Belle Isle. The fishermen who prosecute this fishery take the pelts and the fat, but leave a tremendous amount of good food on the ice floes which they are unable to utilize. The report of the fisheries department and the research board just came to hand yesterday and I have not been able to make a close study of it, but it does reveal the tremendous amount of research which is taking place in this regard. I believe something could be worked out whereby we could utilize some of this wholesome protein food which now goes to the bottom of the ocean. I can vouch for the food value of the kidneys and livers of these young seals, and there is a great deal of food value in the rest of the carcass. If it were only utilized for poultry or dog food, at least some way should be found to use these resources which are now sinking to the bottom of the ocean.
We are very thankful for the deficiency payments which have been made by the department to the Newfoundland fishermen. It appears that far-reaching changes may be in the offing for the fisheries of Newfoundland, so a word or two in this regard may not be out of order. I should like to say a word about the marketing organization in Newfoundland which is known as NAFEL, the Newfoundland Associated Fish Exporters Limited. When we realize the chaotic conditions that existed in the free marketing of fish in the European market and the cutthroat competition, and then see the orderly marketing which we have through NAFEL we are impressed with the wisdom of keeping such an organization, even though it may need some reorganization in order that the maximum return will be forthcoming to assure our producers of being properly reimbursed for their labours.
Supply-Fisheries
Another matter I should like to mention, Mr. Chairman, is that of unemployment insurance. I am not unmindful of the difficulties which are in the way of working out a suitable scheme of unemployment insurance for fishermen; but I want to go on record as saying that I do not consider that this matter defies solution. Where there is a will there is a way. I believe it is possible to work out a scheme whereby unemployment insurance may be made available for the fishermen.
I realize that this year a change has taken place with regard to the value of our exports to the European markets, in view of the change in the currency situation. This year instead of our fish being sold for sterling it is to be sold for dollars. I hope the minister will see that dollars will be available to the European buyers so the exporters will be able to get the necessary currency in exchange for their fish.
There are certain other matters that I should like to mention. For instance, I think that additional investigation of the banks off Newfoundland and Labrador should be followed up. We are looking forward to the report of the fisheries development committee.
There is also the matter of the extension of the territorial waters of Canada. I think it was only last year that some of the Norwegian sealing steamers which engaged in the seal fishery here in Canadian waters came within the three-mile limit and picked up seals. I could not say whether or not those were their own seals which they had taken, panned and flagged and which had been driven, as were the ships, within the three-mile limit. The whole matter needs to be gone into. I believe that possibly a suitable treaty or convention could be arranged with Norway and the other countries whose fishermen obtain the advantage of this natural resource upon which our fishermen have to depend in order to get their livelihood.
In my district the losses, by fishermen were serious last year as a result of that December storm. I am glad some insurance will be worked out for their protection.
Another matter I wish to mention is the need for a bait depot in my district at La Scie. I should like to point out to the minister one other thing, as I have already done. I understand that the site was bought or secured in order to put a bait depot there, but so far I cannot get any further definite promise of a bait depot at La Scie. I should like to point out that not far from La Scie there are two islands, namely the Horse islands, and just across the neck of land in Notre Dame bay there is a settlement of fishermen called Shoe Cove; and it is impossible for the fishermen

Supply-Fisheries
there to have any large wharf or facilities other than their stages which they use to land their catches of fish. I should like to impress upon the minister the necessity of getting a bait depot for these people. I am not one who would advocate unnecessary expenditures; but I would say this is a necessity for our people.
While the fisheries are declining in Newfoundland and, as was pointed out by the minister this morning, there is a drawing away from the fisheries to other more profitable avenues of employment, as is quite natural, nevertheless we realize that the fishing industry has been looked upon in Newfoundland as the backbone of the country in the past. We must protect these men, and we want to do something to encourage them.
There is just one other point I want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, and it is this. I would ask the minister, in his reply, to put on record the details with regard to the bounty of $165 a ton which is being paid for long-liners. I believe this is the way in which our fisheries will be developed in the main in the future. As I said before, I am looking forward to the report of the fisheries development committee which has been functioning for a long time and has put a great deal of hard work into its report. We all look forward to that report with interest, feeling that it will bring forth some sort of plan which will be most helpful to the fishermen in Newfoundland.


Mr. Goode:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the remarks made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I believe that he and I, along with the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, represent most of the west coast salmon fishermen. His idea with regard to the department having a responsible official doing the negotiating in connection with the strike that may happen on Sunday is good. It seems to me that if these men-the united fishermen's union and the industry-approached this matter with any kind of common sense and with the feeling that they wanted to settle the strike, it could be done in about half an hour. In Steveston in the municipality of Richmond we are faced with having some 1,500 boats tied up on the shore. Those fishermen have large families. The economic results of this possible strike in my riding are going to be severe, as they will in Comox-Alberni and in Coast-Capilano.
I know it is a provincial matter, as the Minister of Labour told me the other day in reply to a question of mine in the house with reference to the lumber strike. But there again common sense perhaps goes beyond legal limits. If a senior official from the

fisheries department cannot hold a watching brief-and I quite understand why he could not do so, and I quite understand why the Minister of Fisheries would not want to become involved in what is perhaps a purely domestic matter-I think something can be done in this House of Commons at least to help in the settlement of the strike before it happens. As I say, most of the fishermen are in these three constituencies. It is quite understandable why the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance could not go to the coast even though he might want to do so. However, I think some of us private members who are interested should offer to sit around the table with the fishermen and the industry, should they want us to do so, before this matter comes to a definite strike. I want to suggest to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that he and I should offer or volunteer and that if our services are requested in this matter in an unofficial capacity, we should make ourselves available to both the industry and the fishermen on the west coast.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The hon. member raised a question about Labrador and the subsidy on longliners. That subsidy is $165 a ton, as I said before. The province of Newfoundland has recently formed a fisheries loan board. Therefore the subsidy is applicable to the fishermen of Newfoundland.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I am not going to make any lengthy remarks at this time, but there are a few things I wish to bring forward before we go on to the next item. Yesterday I put a question to the minister to which I should like to have had a more definite answer today, with reference to the extension of twelve days being granted in the month of July. I do not wish to dictate to the department or even tell them that it should be done. If the inspector down there goes to the fishermen, as I understood the minister to say today is to be done, and the fishermen say they should have that extension, well, they should have it. I would rather argue this season for some compensation for the extremely heavy losses they have had this year. Take the people of Prince Edward Island, on the north shore and on the south shore. There the season opens May 1. Their first loss this year was from ice conditions, something that rarely happens. On top of that they had the worst storms of the season. Out of some 12,000 traps the fishermen put out from Rustico harbour I understand that over 6,000 were lost. That is 50 per cent of the total number of traps and gear they put out. On the south side, where the storm was not quite so bad, they lost 25 per cent

of their gear. That does not happen every season, but it did happen this year. If the fishermen do not get their traps repaired, or if they do not know in time that they are going to have an extension of twelve extra days in July they will not have any traps fit to put out. Therefore I urge the minister and the department, if they are going to make that decision, to make it soon so the fishermen can put out some extra gear to take advantage of the twelve days extra time, or whatever extension they may have.
There are several other matters I might speak about, but as the time is going along and there are many other estimates to come up I think perhaps I shall leave my further remarks until a little later except to say a word about draggers and the waste that some other hon. members have said is caused by the draggers. I understand that in my province the department is supporting draggers and perhaps putting them into business where there was never any dragger fishing until last year. As one hon. member said, if the draggers are going to put the shore fisheries out of business it should be thoroughly considered before any action is taken, so our shore fishermen will not lose what at the present time is their livelihood.
Quite a few hon. members spoke about the bounty this afternoon. I understand that the bounty is more or less a trust fund which could not be taken and used, without the proper legislation, for anything but a bounty. When we come to that item I hope the minister will give us a little bit of the history of the bounty money, where it comes from and so forth. We know how it has been spent; it goes out as a bounty. If the minister will give us some information about that bounty when he replies it will settle some of the arguments as to whether or not it could be used for insurance.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I wish to ask the minister a question on item 141. Under "general services" on page 190 there appears the following; "Director of Newfoundland fisheries." Does the amount given opposite that include part of Mr. Gushue's salary?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Perhaps the hon. member would leave that until we come to the item. No, it does not; it refers to the director here in Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
142.	Information and educational service, including $3,500 for grants to fisheries exhibitions, $136,600.
William Joseph Browne: I notice in the amounts estimated for 1951-52 there is a
Supply-Fisheries
drop of about $32,000. Can the minister tell me what he is saving that money on? I presume it is in the latter part of the details.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Would the hon. member
repeat his question?


William Joseph Browne: I notice that on page 192 in the estimated total for 1951-52 the expenditure was $106,000. Last year we voted $138,000. This year it is going to be $136,000. I wondered how the saving of $32,000 was made in the past fiscal year. What did you save the money on? Perhaps I might save some trouble in looking up the details if I said I was chiefly interested in three items, publication of reports, film displays and advertising, and grants to fisheries exhibitions. Were these amounts spent in the past for these three items?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Last year we had an amount in there for a film which we did not proceed with. This year we intend to proceed with it and that is why we want to provide for it.


William Joseph Browne: A special film?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: A special film, yes.


William Joseph Browne: Where is it to be made?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: It is a film on the British Columbia fishery.


William Joseph Browne: Was any
money spent on exhibitions? I see an amount of $3,500 for that purpose.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The sum of $3,500 is mainly for the grant to the Lunenburg exhibition. That is the only grant being made this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
143.	Markets and economics service, $194,600.
Samuel Rosborough Balcom: Since Nova Scotia is an
important centre of fishing, I wonder whether the department has given consideration to including provision for an economist being placed at Halifax?	_


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We have an economist at the Halifax station now.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: A recent one?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes, a recent appointment.


Percy Chapman Black: I notice in the estimates there is provision for a large number of economists. If I understood him correctly, the hon. member for Halifax asked for another one. What is the purpose of having these 18 economists? What are their duties and responsibilities, where are they stationed and what do they do?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I have a long statement here, but we have spent considerable time on these
3444

Supply-Fisheries
estimates and, while it would be interesting to read it, I hesitate to deal with it at such length. Last year their work consisted of providing services in Newfoundland in connection with price support, and the service they have rendered to many other departments. They are connected with the economic consideration of departmental policy, the handling of requests for price support, and the operation of such price support activities as are authorized by the government. Then, in co-operation with the Department of Trade and Commerce, they make studies of the factors affecting the export market as it applies to fisheries products. In co-operation with the dominion bureau of statistics they work on the collection compilation and analysis of fisheries statistics, and the development of a fisheries census. They conduct basic research into the field of fisheries products. They prepare for publication arid make reports on economic surveys and market reports, and make contributions to departmental publications. That gives some idea of the work involved.


Percy Chapman Black: Were the new economists appointed last year, or is this staff that has been in the department for some time? There would appear to be 18 of them now. Has the department been expanding in this respect?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: A change is being made shifting staff from the prices support board to the department.


Percy Chapman Black: We have here reference to a director of the marketing and economics service. How long has the director been in the department, and what are his duties? He is receiving $7,080, and is thus a reasonably high-priced man. I believe all would agree that there is some scope for work of this kind in the department.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: He has been in the department since 1945. He is now acting head of the prices support board, and was for some time with the Department of Agriculture. He is heading up this branch, and is a very valuable man to the whole department.


Percy Chapman Black: Would the minister care to give his name?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Ian McArthur.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
144.	Administrative expenses of the Newfoundland fisheries board, $33,900.
William Joseph Browne: Who is to
be the new chairman of the fisheries board

in Newfoundland? Is there any difference involved in the new title of "administrative officer"?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We have not yet made any appointment to replace Mr. Gushue.


William Joseph Browne: I believe it would be appropriate to pay some tribute to the outstanding services rendered by Mr. Gushue during the many years he was chairman of this board, during which time he gave valuable service to Newfoundland. I believe he is recognized internationally today as an outstanding figure in the matter of the fisheries of this country. I feel it is only his due that he be paid a tribute for his intelligence and his courtesy in dealing with matters relating to fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
145.	Industrial development service, $40,000.
Andrew Wesley Stuart: What number were benefited by the bounty payments during the last year, and what was the average amount paid? .


Robert Wellington Mayhew: That does not come under this item.


Percy Chapman Black: How is this money spent? I see it makes reference to technical services to fishermen and the fishing industry. I should like to have some particulars about this vote.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: This item makes provision for the longliner, mentioned this morning. It will enable us to carry on with the use of longliners in Newfoundland, experimentally. Two years ago we had two boats, and last year we had two. In addition we are putting on two more boats, so that there will be four operating this year on an experimental and exploration basis in and around the islands of Newfoundland.


William Joseph Browne: In what area will those boats be fishing?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Northward from Bonavista along the coast, but not in the areas where they were fishing last year. It will be from Bonavista bay, up to Englee, and in that area.


William Joseph Browne: Will there be any boats working along the coast from St. John's south, or along the south coast?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No, not this year.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to ask a question about the statutory vote with reference to fishing bounties. The minister said this afternoon that in the maritime provinces there were more than 14,000 eligible for the grant of fishing bounties. How many of those who are eligible applied for and received the bounties?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I gave this morning the number who applied before January 1.


Clarence Gillis: How many are eligible to receive it?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We do not know. We know only the number who have applied. There may be others who are eligible but who have not applied.


Clarence Gillis: I have received letters from several fishermen who were eligible but who did not get in under the deadline. Because their applications were not in by a certain date they were not accepted. Could the deputy minister give an approximation of the number in the fishing provinces who would be eligible under the vote of $160,000?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: There were approximately 100 applications made after January 1.


Clarence Gillis: From all over?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: All over.


Clarence Gillis: That is national?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: It is not national. It applies only to the maritime provinces and Quebec; it does not apply to the west coast or Newfoundland.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member for Queens asked the minister to give us a little background of this vote. I know the minister argues, as others have argued, that this $160,000 is interest on a fund held in trust for a particular purpose. That fund was set up by legislation and parliament can change that legislation. If the amount obtained in this way is inadequate to serve the purpose intended, then new legislation to provide better insurance for those who operate under this general set-up should be considered. I should like the minister to tell us when the fund was established and what the legislation stipulates.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I agree with what the hon. member for Cape Breton South has said in this regard. My experience has been that only 50 per cent of the fishermen eligible for bounty actually make application. In many cases the payments are quite small and of little benefit to the individual fisherman. If this money could be used for some purpose which would benefit all fishermen, then I agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South that the regulations should be changed. Can the minister tell us the average payment made last year?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: As far back as 1818 the
United States made a treaty that covered their right to fish in Canadian waters and to use Canadian ports. There was considerable contention over this, and in 1854 with a reci-55704-2184
S upply-Fis heries
procity treaty equal rights were given to Canadians in United States ports. Then later, in 1871, the Halifax award was made under which the United States paid $4 million to Canada and $1 million to Newfoundland as compensation for the greater rights given their fishermen. The payment of $4 million to Canada was put out at interest from which these payments are made. The average payment last year was $9.55. We know nothing about what happened to the $1 million which was paid to Newfoundland and which went to Great Britain.


Clarence Gillis: I feel that the legislation under which this-


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but a few days ago I interrupted the hon. member for Cumberland when he was attempting to discuss a statutory item and indicated that such discussion should take place on the first item of the department. I have allowed this question to be asked and the minister has answered it, but following up what I indicated' a few afternoons ago I think the hon. member should not discuss a statutory item except on the first item of the department.


Clarence Gillis: I waited deliberately until we reached this item. I shall remember this next year and have a real discussion on the first item.


Percy Chapman Black: I think we all want to co-operate, but I believe the hon. member for Cape Breton South has yielded too much ground. This money has been placed in the hands of the government and is being distributed in a certain way, and if we do not avail ourselves of this opportunity we will have no record of the expenditures. I do not want to press the matter at this stage but, on the other hand, I feel strongly that we are entitled to this information.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I do not know of any further information I could give. This is a statutory item which can be changed only by an act of parliament. There is nothing we can do about it except to pay out the money as specified by the act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
146.	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 26, 1947, $700,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I notice there is a decrease of $100,000 in this item, and I take it that is due to a change in policy under which you are now machining, dyeing and processing these furs in one place. I have been urging that this be done ever since 1945 in order that a

Supply-Fisheries
uniform fur seal skin could be offered to the trade. In figuring it up for last year I find that you lost $165,000 plus extra expenses. I want to say to the minister and the department that I hope this season, whatever the catch is, they will have it properly processed instead of having a portion of the seals processed and the others dragged along at a very low price. I notice that this year, for instance, those processed in St. Louis by the Fouke company sold on an average for about $66 more than those processed in the other place.
I have warned the department about that for the last seven years and I hope they now have definitely changed their policy and that we will not have to compliment them in the same manner another year. We hope to see their earnings improve; and I think the committee would be very glad to find out from the minister the amount of profit this fur seal trade is bringing in.
I have another point on this matter of fur seals. A few days ago I drew to the attention of the minister the fact that Japan wanted to get back into this treaty and get a share of the fur seal business. Whatever the minister does on behalf of his department and Canada, let him not give away one per cent or one single skin. If the Americans wish to give their share or to give any amount we cannot stop them. We are now entitled to 20 per cent, so let that not get out of our hands. We need that 20 per cent. Do not be influenced by anyone who says Japan should have 5 per cent. Japan at one time had the opportunity and abused it. Now let her get that amount from the United States if she wants to, but I would like the minister and the department to stand firm and not give away one per cent let alone 5 per cent of our share of the fur seals.


John Lambert Gibson: Does the minister feel that he can usefully comment on the observations made by the hon. gentleman?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The member for Queens first asked what was the revenue from this source. It was a gross of $772,507.84 last year. We paid to the Canadian government $482,245.52 in duty, which left a net of $290,262.32; but the revenue to Canada was $772,507.84.
In connection with the remarks the hon. member made about Japan, I believe Japan has made application but the matter has not yet been given consideration. Those remarks will be in our minds when any negotiations are going on.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Can the minister give us assurance now that the processing of our fur seals will all be done at one place, in St. Louis?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The first year I was Minister of Fisheries there was quite an agitation to

give a Canadian firm a chance to prove whether they could properly process seal skins in Canada and thus create a manufacturing industry. We did allow a Toronto firm a considerable number of skins to see what they could do. That has not turned out to be a success up to date, so they are not processing at all. We still have some skins in England with Martin's. They will be finished and sent to Canada. If they turn out to be as good as the St. Louis Fouke skins we may try them out with some more. However, my instructions to the department this year have been that all the skins we take this year should go to the Fouke company at St. Louis for processing and dyeing. Further than that, we have asked them to process enough that we can reduce our inventory of skins at St. Louis.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Protection branch-
148. Operation and maintenance, $2,747,294.
William Joseph Browne: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether this is the right time to ask the minister a question about hatcheries. I regret that I was not here this morning, when I understand the minister spoke about the fish hatcheries in the maritimes. I wonder if he would mind letting me know whether any consideration has been given to the establishment of a salmon or trout hatchery in Newfoundland.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I answered the question this morning and I think the hon. member will find the answer in Hansard.


William Joseph Browne: The only reason I mention this is that I understand the minister said there was no work done last year in the maritimes on hatcheries.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I did not say no work was done; I said no new hatcheries were built in the maritimes last year. When I first saw them the hatcheries were in a pretty run-down condition and I thought they should be repaired and at least put in presentable condition. That was done, but no new hatcheries were built. Trout hatcheries in Newfoundland, as well as in some other places, are the responsibility of the provincial government. As far as salmon hatcheries are concerned they have not proved adequate to meet needs. We think the policy of clearing and improving the ascent to the fish beds is a better way of increasing salmon production in Newfoundland as well as in other places.


William Joseph Browne: I must thank the minister for going to the trouble of again saying what he said this morning, but I

would like to draw attention to the report of the department for 1950-51 where it says:
Thirty-three new outdoor concrete ponds, each with a capacity of up to 50,000 salmon or trout fingerlings, were constructed at hatcheries throughout Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
I was referring to work in 1950-51, unless he tells us it is impossible to learn what is being done in 1951. It is further stated in the report that:
Operations were carried on at thirteen main hatcheries . . .
Do I understand from the minister that the policy of salmon hatcheries is being abandoned notwithstanding the extra work which was done in that season?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The concrete you refer to was put on the bottoms of the pools. They were mud bottoms, and we put in concrete bottoms as an improvement of the hatcheries.


William Joseph Browne: On that point, Mr. Chairman, on page 21 of the report these figures are given: speckled trout, 12,045,408; brown trout, 30,655; rainbow trout, 147,176. They must have been planting these small trout there.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Under the terms of the union Newfoundland agreed to look after the fresh water streams, but our department is responsible in the maritimes.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: There are two questions I would like to ask on item 148. In Nova Scotia a great many guardians are employed over a period of six months but actually they are only paid for a period of perhaps four months. It is rather difficult for a man to give up some employment he might have, thinking he is going to be employed for six months and then receive remuneration for only four months. I think perhaps even where the water might be low and fish not very numerous the employment of those guardians should be continued.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Well, that is something new to me. I never heard that we were engaging people for six months and only paying them four months' salary. I have not the answer here, but I assure the hon. member I shall look into it.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: I have another question that comes under this item. Has there been an open season on Arctic char?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: There has been no open season for Arctic char; we have given special permits in that connection.


George Clyde Nowlan: Will the minister comment briefly on the boats which are available for protective service on the east coast, and particularly for the western part of my province. Last year I think there was one called the Cygnus which was available, in addition to
Supply-Fisheries
an older one that was in such bad shape the captain thought it was unsafe to take out in stormy weather. Only these two ships were available for work around the southwestern part of the province, so I should like to know if the minister would make a brief statement listing the number of ships which are available for that service.
I noticed also in the details for this item-
I do not want to inquire about a lot of details -that apparently this year we are employing 39 captains as compared with 42 for the year before. I presume that the word "captains" refers to sea captains and not to vessels. We have 39 full-time employees, which is 3 less than last year, yet the amount for this year is $116,868 as compared with $97,104 for last year.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We have eight boats in all
available in this section.


George Clyde Nowlan: Could the minister name them,, please?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: There is the Cygnus, Lacuna, Limanda, A. Halkett, Gilbert, Venning, Modiolus and the Mya.


George Clyde Nowlan: Where are they based? From what ports do they operate?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: There is the Gilbert at Lunenburg, the Cygnus at Halifax; the Lacuna at Halifax and the Limanda in the Digby-Yar-mouth area; the Modiolus in the Digby Neck-St. Mary's bay area; the A. Halkett is across at Cape Breton, the Mya and the Venning are in the Northumberland straits.


Percy Chapman Black: In this same connection, I find we appear to be providing money for 100 engineers. I should like to ask the minister if there is actually a need for 100 engineers, and for what purpose are they used?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I think the hon. member is taking in all the engineers throughout Canada, including Newfoundland and the Atlantic coast. In that event he would be about right.


George Clyde Nowlan: Will the minister explain the increase in the salaries for captains? Perhaps there was an automatic increase, but I just noticed that apparently there was a reduction by three in the number of captains, but an increase of about $20,000.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: That is due to a salary revision by the Department of Labour.


Percy Chapman Black: Do I understand from the minister that there is a need for 100 engineers in operating the boats used by the Department of Fisheries?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We have approximately 70 ships protecting the whole area, some of which are quite large and require more than

Supply-Fisheries
one engineer. Some have two engineers and some three, depending upon their size and their sailings.


Mr. Hodgson:: I should like to ask the minister a question about the increase in operation and maintenance. There was an increase of $146,286 in this item for the protection branch under "field services" the increase in operation and maintenance is $457,903. I think the minister should give an explanation of that large increase in one year.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The hon. member will notice there is quite a list of employees in this protection branch, and the increase here is the increase allowed in the revision of salaries last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fish culture and development branch-
153.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $193,190.
Percy Chapman Black: This item refers to fish culture and development work, operation and maintenance. I recognize that this is a very important service, but a large sum of money seems to be needed. There is a great necessity for fish culture work in Nova .Scotia and the maritime provinces in order to build up these places as tourist attractions. I should like to have a statement from the minister concerning what is being done in expanding that work, and how many fish hatcheries there are in Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: This is an important department, in fact one of our most important. Its functions include stream surveys, stream improvement and control, predator control, reduction and elimination, and modified hatchery production procedures as an aid to maintaining and increasing stocks of fish. It includes also field administration of oyster and clam culture in the maritime provinces. The main functions are operation of experimental oyster farms to develop farming techniques based on scientific research and their demonstration.
The number of hatcheries in Nova Scotia are: main hatcheries 7, salmon ponds 3, rearing stations 5, or a total of 15.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Field services-
154.	Consumer branch, $46,060.
John Lambert Gibson: I notice that in this item there is a decrease of $9,000. This is an important branch. I was wondering whether the minister had any statement to give to the committee as to what success is attending their efforts in selling canned salmon. I was particularly interested in the comment made

by the hon. member for Nanaimo today with regard to the armed services. About a year ago, from the answer to a question of mine, it seemed that the armed forces were eating comparatively little canned salmon. A commodity of this kind is easily stored, and it is of high quality. I noticed particularly that our armed services were eating the most expensive type of canned salmon. I would have thought possibly the department would be able to influence the cooks or the quartermaster's officers to use more of our product than they do, particularly the pink variety of salmon. It certainly is competitive with other protein foods and is economical.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The reduction in this item is not real because we are going to have to ask for something more in the supplementary estimates in order to provide for the fisheries cook book which I think most hon. members have seen. There has been wide circulation and favourable acceptance by the trade generally of that book. We therefore must have an extra amount in the supplementaries to make up what we thought we were going to be able to get along without.
The hon. member for Nanaimo spoke about the use of salmon in the armed forces. I think I am quite safe in saying that matter is being arranged. I had the experience of sampling some Russian salmon on one of our boats in Korea. I was able to talk the matter over with the minister here and I think in future our troops, wherever they are, will be able to get canned salmon.


William Joseph Browne: The minister was also asked by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni how this program was working out. I wonder if he can tell us about that. I do not know as yet where the experimental kitchen is. I should like to see it some time.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I will give the hon. member an invitation now to come down and have a sample from our kitchen.


William Joseph Browne: Today or tomorrow?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I will give hon. members a general invitation, as long as too many of them do not come down at a time. Last year we asked a great many parties to come down-or at least the ladies did-to have a demonstration in the kitchen. I would say our diet kitchen is one of our most effective pieces of work, having regard to the work they are doing not only here in Ottawa but from one end of Canada to the other. I think it is having a good effect.


George Clyde Nowlan: If I can get an invitation by rising to speak I will certainly do so. I want to commend the minister for the work which

has been done by the consumer branch. I think it is something which is well worth while. On both sea coasts I think we are conscious of the fact that this country has not appreciated all the possibilities with regard to the preparation and distribution of fish. I believe real leadership has been given in this matter up to the present time. I think the minister and the officials who have been distributing the literature or working on this matter deserve commendation. I should like to see greater emphasis placed upon it.


Percy Chapman Black: I agree that this department is doing important work. I want to join my colleague in commending the minister and the officials for the excellent work they have done in the last two or three years. I want to point out, however, that there is still some room for further development and extension of the work of this department with regard to making fish menus more acceptable to the people, especially to tourists who come to the maritime provinces. Hardly a tourist who comes to our part of the maritime provinces but looks forward to getting tasty menus of native fish. There is a great deal more to be done. I want to commend the minister and his department for what they have done and for what they are endeavouring to do.


William Joseph Browne: Will the minister tell us where that kitchen is or where we have to go?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The kitchen is in the basement of the west block. You will find the kitchen itself much better than the path to it.


Mr. Herridge:: I just want to rise and join other hon. members in complimenting the minister and his officials on the work done under this item. I think it is one thing being done by the fisheries department that is stirring the imagination of many people in Canada. I have heard a number of women express the opinion that it is an extremely effective way of promoting fish sales in this country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
155.	To provide for the destruction of harbour and gray seals, $45,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What was the bounty paid per seal last year and how much bounty was paid for seals destroyed in Prince Edward Island?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The hon. member wants the breakdown by provinces?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Yes.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: In Nova Scotia it was
995, $5,780; in Prince Edward Island, 232, $1,505; New Brunswick, 287, $1,895; British Columbia, 279, $13,955 or a total of $23,135.
Supply-Fisheries
I might say this is one item that we would be only too happy to increase. We wish people would take more interest in the destruction of these seals. It would be beneficial to them and to the industry.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The bounty is $10?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: $10 for adults and $5 for pups for the maritime provinces.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is there any way use could be made of the oil if they were taken in?
I understand that $10 is paid on the snout and that no use is made of the rest of the carcass in any way. Could the oil be extracted? It should be good for something.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: It would be impossible to get them in sufficient volume to be of any use. You get a seal here and there. Before you would get them collected the seals would not be fit to use.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Can the minister tell me how one can get hold of the skin of a hair seal? I will tell himi what I have in mind. It is almost impossible to get the skin of the hair seal which is used as a climbing skin in skiing and mountaineering. It has become almost impossible to get them either here or in Europe. I just wondered whether there was any possibility of getting a skin. Several people have asked me about the matter.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: They are processed in Newfoundland and it would be quite easy for anyone to get a skin.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Where?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: From Newfoundland. I have not the address. Any of the Newfoundland people could probably give it to the hon. member. Perhaps the hon. member for St. John's West would like to give it to him.


William Joseph Browne: I shall be pleased to give the hon. member the address.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisheries research board-
156.	Headquarters administration, $92,794.
Samuel Rosborough Balcom: Mr. Chairman, it is pleasing to hear coming from the opposite side such words of praise for the Minister of Fisheries and his staff. Just recently some 50 members of the house had an opportunity to visit Halifax and the experimental station down there under the leadership of Dr. Beatty and his staff and Mr. O. F. Mackenzie. We should like to commend the minister and the deputy at this time for the fine work that has been done.
Does the minister consider that we are making satisfactory progress in the prevention of bacteria spoilage that normally occurs in fish?

Supply-Fisheries


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I would not like to answer that question; I do not know. We are doing the best we can. I do not think we will ever get to the stage where we will be satisfied with what we are doing.


William Joseph Browne: Yesterday I received a copy of the annual report of the fisheries research board of Canada for 1951; I spent most of last night reading it, and I found it very interesting. I would certainly like to compliment the fisheries board on the very fine report they put out and on the work they are doing. I notice that on page 5 it is recommended that a much larger ocean-going vessel is urgently needed for work on the banks in northern waters. Is it the policy of the government this year to have that vessel built?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We have some money in the votes for the plan of a boat, not for the actual construction. We shall have to wait until next year for that.


William Joseph Browne: I notice also that the department purchased a building in St. John's from the provincial government. Has the minister the price of the building? Can he let me know what it cost?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: It would be in the Department of Public Works.


William Joseph Browne: The minister does not know?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: It would be in the votes of the Department of Public Works.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: A year or so ago research work was done with reference to scallop beds in Prince Edward Island. There was a great fanfare of advertising about it. No one knows where the scallop beds are. They found them, of course, but I cannot find anything about them. Many people are asking where the scallop beds of Prince Edward Island are. Where did the research board locate them? If the minister has the information there, it would be well to put on record where they located the beds.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I have not the information here in presentable form, but I shall see that the hon. member gets the details.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisheries research board-
157.	Operation and maintenance, $1,759,395.
Mr. Catherwood:: I have a few remarks to make in connection with this item. I ask the minister not to overlook the problem of the inland fisheries of Canada. I notice by the twenty-first annual report of the Department of Fisheries that landings dropped 18 per cent, or something like 25 million pounds of

fish, in great lakes waters, and the catch of both whitefish and pickerel declined significantly. I realize that this is largely a matter that comes under provincial jurisdiction. Nevertheless it is a very important industry to the inland part of Canada, and I hope the minister and his department will give every co-operation and assistance to the departments of fisheries of Ontario and the other provincial governments in this matter, and particularly in the matter of research. I believe the department at Ottawa can make a real contribution to research in inland fisheries.


George Clyde Nowlan: I notice there is an increase of $264,897 in this item. Will the minister tell us how much of that is owing to statutory increases in salaries, and how much to increases in staff?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The sum of $191,525 is salary and wage increases; special services, $3,270; travelling expenses, $29,000. The other large items are repairs and upkeep of buildings, $18,000, and repairs and upkeep of equipment, $20,000; and other miscellaneous items totalling $276,000.


William Joseph Browne: Is any assistance or encouragement given to the use of nylon in fish traps in Newfoundland?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I am told that we have done no experimenting in nylon traps to date.


William Joseph Browne: I understand that one fish merchant down there was in communication with the officials of the research department about making experiments along that line, because they are very much lighter and I believe they give longer life. It might be worth while for the research board to consider using them.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes.


William Joseph Browne: I understand from the report that they have been used in the salmon fishery.


Percy Chapman Black: I presume my inquiry will come under this item. I want a statement from the minister, if he will give it to us, as to what development there has been in the last year in propagating oysters. In northern Nova Scotia and especially in Prince Edward Island we have I suppose the best natural oyster beds anywhere in the world. The department did undertake to establish an oyster bed in my constituency of Cumberland, in the Malagash and Wallace area, but I was very much disappointed at the headway the department was able to make according to the last report I received. This is, as I said, a natural oyster area, and produces the best flavoured oysters in the whole world. It is a very serious reflection on the minister personally, and on his department,

that they cannot make a success of propagating oysters as they should in this natural area of northern Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and eastern New Brunswick. Can the minister make a statement as to what has been accomplished during the last year and what is proposed for the ensuing year out of the funds we are now providing?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I am sorry, but I have no additional information to what I gave last year. I know the St. Andrews' station under Dr. Needier is very interested in this. He is the one who is responsible for it. It was through him that the report was made available.


George Clyde Nowlan: I did not get an answer to the question I asked the minister with respect to the increase in costs, but I presume it will appear in Hansard. I should like to ask a specific question with respect to the scallop fisheries. I do not expect the minister to have all the details of all the work that is being done by these research boards under this head, but I would draw this matter to his attention. If he can comment on it now, well and good; if not, I should like to hear from him later.
As he knows, the scallop fishery in the bay of Fundy, emanating from the constituency of Annapolis-Kings, is the largest in Canada and one of the largest in the world, and is of tremendous importance to that whole area. Recently a boat operated by his department, and I believe coming out of St. Andrews, has been fishing or dragging for scallops. Instead of using a conventional ring of 23 inches they have been experimenting with a ring of 3J inches. I have had this matter up with some of the officials of his department and have been told by them-and I accept their word absolutely-that this is simply an experiment which is being carried on and it may not have any particular merit whatsoever. However, it has caused a great deal of concern to many of the fishermen, because from the information I have received the cost of this new ring would be very much in excess of that of the old ring. I believe the boat operated for about thirty days and they caught about 3,200 pounds of scallops. Scallop fishermen would starve to death if they had to operate a ring of that size. I am well aware of the necessity for conservation, and I agree of course that the department should be taking steps to conduct experiments. But I would place on record the warning that this should be only an experiment, and that no change should be made until there has been careful consultation with those involved. Certainly they are exercised about it at the moment.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I can assure my hon. friend that that will be done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Fisheries
International commissions-
160.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission appointed under treaty dated May 26, 1930, between Canada and the United States for the protection, preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries of the Fraser river system, $164,200.
Tom Goode: Why is there a reduction of $2,150 in this item?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: It is a matter of adjustment between Canada and the United States on a divisible share basis.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
161.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international Pacific salmon fisheries com-mission to overcome obstructions to the ascent of sockeye salmon at Hell's Gate canyon and for investigating and overcoming obstructions to such salmon at other points on the Fraser river watershed (revote), $8,000.
Mr. Green:: I notice the amount is only $8,000 this year. Is that work practically completed, or what is the reason for the decrease in the vote?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The Hell's Gate project is practically completed. This amount is for maintenance purposes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special
[Stage Direction]
165.	To provide for the extension of educational work in co-operative producing and selling among fishermen, $80,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: How is the greater part of the educational work done?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Work to the value of $46,000 is done at St. Francis Xavier university, $24,000 in connection with the social economics service in Quebec, and $10,000 for the University of British Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
166.	To provide for administration expenses of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944, $80,625.
William Joseph Browne: Would the minister give the committee the final figures in respect of deficiency payments for 1950? I would ask for the information in two lots, namely the amount for Labrador and the amount for shore fishermen.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The total amount was


William Joseph Browne: How much for Labrador and how much for shore fishermen?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The amount for Labrador was $447,539.36. This item will appear in the supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Fisheries
167.	To provide for assistance in the construction of vessels of the dragger and/or long liner type, subject to such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $150,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: How much of this assistance is in connection with draggers built for operation in Prince Edward Island? On what terms are they built? What would be the cost?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I have answered that question several times this afternoon. It is $165 per ton. The subsidy is given by the federal government, and where the provincial governments have loan boards, they give loans. Our subsidies vary, but they run about $6,000, or $6,500.


George Randolph Pearkes: None of this is given to the west coast?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No.


Percy Chapman Black: How many of these wooden vessels in different sizes are being built under the authority of the
department, and where? Let me point out that in Nova Scotia, especially in Cumberland county, we have old shipyards, very few of which are still in existence, with a record of constructing wooden ships to sail the seven seas. They were doing that a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago. Even then they were turning out a quality of ship that could not be surpassed anywhere. How many of these are being built under the authority of the department, and where? Is preference being given to these old shipyards that have survived through the years, even in competition with steel ships? I suggest special consideration should be given to them.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We have no say as to where they shall be built; the fishermen make that decision. They are not in competition with steel. If the hon. member wishes to have a breakdown by provinces for the last five years, it is as follows:
SUMMARY OF SUBSIDIES By Provinces and Types of Vessels For Each Fiscal Year
-	New Brunswick	Nova Scotia	No.	Draggers Expendi- ture	No.	Long Liners Expendi- ture	No.	Total Expendi- ture	No.	Draggers Expendi- ture	No.	Long Liners Expendi- ture	No.	Total Expendi- ture1947-48	7 8 7 3 2	$ 40,504 20 49,392 80 44,175 45 19,354 50 14,236 20	$	7 8 7 3 2	$ 40,504 20 49,392 80 44,175 45 19,354 50 14,236 20	$	$	$1948-49	1949-	50	
1950-	51	1 2	5,742 00 14,064 60	2 12	7,521 00 68,756 70	3 14	13,263 00 82,821 301951-52	
Totals for All Fiscal Years.	27	167,663 15			27	167,663 15	3	19,806 60	14	76,277 70	17	96,084 30
												
-	Prince Edward Island	Totals	No.	Draggers Expendi- ture	No.	Long Liners Expendi- ture	No.	Total Expendi- ture	No.	Draggers Expendi- ture	No.	Long Liners Expendi- ture	No.	Total Expendi- ture1947-48 	*	$	$	7 8 7 4 8	$ 40,504 20 49,392 80 44,175 45 25,096 50 58,056 90	$	7 8 7 6 20	$ 40,504 20 49,392 80 44,175 45 32,617 50 126,813 601948-49 .	1949-50	1950-51	2 12	7,521 00 68,756 70	1951-52	4	29,756 10	4	29,756 10	
Totals for All Fiscal Years.	4	29,756 10			4	29,756 10	34	217,225 85	14	76,277 70	48	293,503 55


William Joseph Browne: Is there any provision where a conversion is being carried out, let us say from a Labrador vessel to a longliner?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No. There is no provision for converting old ships.


George Clyde Nowlan: Do all the draggers under this item have to operate outside the twelve-mile limit, or are they the ones on which the restriction is placed?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: It depends upon the size of the boat. If they are over 100 feet, they have to operate outside.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I do not think I received an answer to my question as to the cost of draggers built in Prince Edward Island. What proportion does the department pay?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We have no knowledge of the cost of a boat, nor are we concerned with it. We take into consideration only the tonnage. The provincial government making the loan makes the decision on the question the hon. member has asked.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
168.	To provide for assistance in the construction of bait freezing and storage facilities, subject to the approval of the governor in council, $30,000.
William Joseph Browne: I notice that in 1950-51 only $5,900 was spent, and that last year $24,000 was to be spent. Is any bait depot or bait storage depot to be built in Newfoundland this year? The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay made reference to one at La Scie. Is that going to be built this year? Is any other bait storage depot going to be provided in Newfoundland?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We have in mind one bait depot in Newfoundland for this year.


William Joseph Browne: Where is that to be?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: It has not yet been decided where it is going to be. At the present time representatives of this department, of the departments of Agriculture, Public Works and Resources and Development, and of the provincial government are on a trip through the northeastern part of Newfoundland from Bonavista north to St. Anthony to investigate general resources.


William Joseph Browne: Is the minister in a position to say whether small holding depots, such as he spoke of, are possible where it is not considered to be an economic proposition to build the regular size bait depot?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: My understanding is that the smaller holding depots may be necessary in some places, but we are using the Arctica
Supply-Fisheries
for distributing bait. The bait freezing operation is under active study at the present time. It is not by any means turning out as we thought it would, and the cost to the taxpayer is considerably more than we thought it would be or should be.


Mr. Carroll:: What are the conditions under which bait freezing facilities will be established? For many years we had a bait freezer at Port Hood operated by a company there. Then a couple of years ago the Nova Scotia government extended its electric power line across the island and for some reason or other it was found that the bait freezer could not be operated. Would it be possible to have something done if the necessary application were made?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We will review each application as it comes in. The conditions to be met are as follows. There must be proper freezing facilities provided. It must be combined with fishing operations, as the bait operation by itself is not profitable. The need for bait facilities in the area to be serviced must be established. The bait facilities must be refrigerated and of a capacity suitable to meet the needs of the area. These are to be determined by engineers of the fisheries research board.


William F. Carroll: Was a subsidy agreement entered into in connection with the Cheticamp fishery some years ago and, if so, for how much?


Percy Chapman Black: This is the last item and I should like to place on record two sentences from a letter from one of my constituents in connection with the storm and ice damage. The minister was not able to give a complete answer as to the policy of the government in connection with paying for this damage, and I would just like to quote from this letter as follows:
The damage suffered was severe. Not only did we lose thousands of traps, but we lost the fishing due to this. We believe that the government should compensate the fishermen and packers of the mari-times as well as they do the farmers of the west when they have a loss.
I wanted to put that on record so the minister will understand the position of the lobster packers in Northumberland strait and Nova Scotia generally.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker,
may I ask the leave of the house to revert to presenting reports and on behalf of the hon.

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) present the second report of the special committee on Bill No. 305, respecting immigration.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Administration services-
221. Departmental administration, $431,397.
Mr. Prudham:: Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief statement that I would like to put on the record at this time.
The several divisions of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys have a long career of accomplishment in the development of Canada's natural resources. In its several branches we have had and now have men of outstanding qualification who have devoted their lives to the fascinating work of unlocking the storehouse of Canada's resources.
From the discussions that have occurred in this house during the last few weeks I take it that we have quite a number of hon. members who are experts in mining. Those who are not experts are already informed of the work of this department through the publication of the "Summary of Activities in 1951" that has been distributed to all hon. members. If any have not read this publication as yet I would commend it to them, because I think it gives a very concise and complete summary of the activities of our department. This pamphlet was released because of frequent requests from hon. members for information on the activities of the department.
Arising from the rapid expansion of the industry we are now serving, this department has carried out during the last year-and we are planning to carry out this year-one of the largest programs of field work, research work, map making, tests and investigation that we have ever had. Because of the urgent need for minerals that are vital to our defence effort emphasis in recent years has been more particularly on mining and metallurgical problems of economic importance. The work of surveys and exploration has spread out into new areas and has caused an exceptionally large demand for surveys of this department including mapping.
Coupled with this industrial expansion are the requirements of the defence services in


geography, geology, topographical and hydrographic mapping and metallurgy. Much of the assistance given in the discovery of mineral deposits and in developing new mines is indirect, because it is the consistent policy of this department not to compete with or duplicate the services of private industry or provincial governments. However, there are many services that can be properly performed by the government of Canada.
As an introduction to these estimates I just wish to give a brief explanation of the functions of the five branches that make up the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.
The surveys and mapping branch supplies the fundamental maps on which all surveys and developments are based. The geological survey of Canada provides through maps and reports the geological information derived from field studies which give clues to the mineral-bearing formations and structures. These maps and reports are a prime necessity for the prospector in his search for minerals. The mines branch has as its broad function the development of processes for the treatment of ores and fuels and of methods of use for many industrial minerals. It deals also with metallurgy in reference to requirements of national defence and of industry. The geographical branch established only a few years ago is proving to be a useful service to many departments of government and to the general public. It conducts field surveys in various parts of Canada and compiles topical studies in Canadian and foreign geography. It also is assembling data for the production of a new atlas of Canada. The dominion observatory has several functions which may be listed as follows: positional astronomy for the determination of precise time; stellar physics or the study of the physical processes going on in the atmosphere; terrestrial magnetism; seismology or the study of earthquakes; astrophysics or the studies of the meteors and the physical nature of the stars.
The Department of Mines and Technical Surveys is finding it difficult to keep abreast of the greatly increasing needs of the mining and metallurgical industries and the increased demands for more maps and for more mapping and charting. The department is striving to give the best service possible by concentrating its attention on areas or on problems in the forefront of mineral development, and by giving priority to minerals and problems of current strategic importance.
The hon. member for Peace River suggested that it might save some time and some discussion if I were to give a breakdown of the increase shown in our vote this year. There is a total increase in the vote of $2,803,078. Of this, emergency gold mining assistance is taking $1,300,000. Salary increases and

statutory increases in salary amount to $1,150,000. That leaves a net increase in expenditures amounting to $353,078. That represents only 1 [DOT] 6 per cent increase over the 1952 estimates of expenditure, other than the items mentioned.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South made a reference recently to the work of the geological survey branch of our department. His remarks are reported on page 3280 of Hansard. He cites a request that was made through him to our department for an airborne magnetic survey of an area in Nova Scotia for a private company. It is the policy of this department not to compete with or duplicate the efforts of private industry or of provincial governments. Several companies are equipped to do commercial magnetometer surveys. Their services are available to private companies. The geological survey of Canada has conducted airborne magnetometer surveys since 1949. They are conducted, however, on a broad regional basis, and in no case has a survey been undertaken for an individual enterprise in competition with private consultants or operators.
The airborne magnetometer is to some extent still an experimental device. The policy of this department has been that of investigating the greatest possible number of geological formations over wide areas, in order to study and appraise the value of the results obtained and to correlate the results with the known geological and geophysical data in the areas. Our activities to date in this regard have been in the regions where known geological and geophysical characteristics are most favourable for correlation of results.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I do not suppose that ever before in the history of the human race has such a challenge been put to so few people, Mr. Chairman, as the challenge which the development of our natural resources puts to the 14 million of us who call ourselves Canadians. The possibilities of mineral development in Canada absolutely beggar description. Never has any country shown so much of what lies under its surface as has Canada in recent years, and it is becoming more and more of a challenge to us as new instruments of recovery are developed and perfected.
Before going on with my rather brief remarks, because as I have said this subject is probably as important as the development of the Atlantic pact, I should like to say that our civilization has progressed at a geometric rate. The stone age took many hundreds of thousands of years; the bronze age took a few thousand years; the iron age took a few hundred years; the steel age could possibly be measured in decades, and the
19, 1952	3455
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys atomic age which we are in now could be measured in years. I do not speak tonight as a technical man. Long ago I gave up my practice as an engineer. I speak as a citizen of a country that is just on the verge of becoming one of the really great nations of the world, and becoming so because of the development of its natural resources.
At the outset I shall try to give a little credit for the great work that is being done by the scientific, engineering and technical personnel of this department. Today the men who have the skills of the directors of this department are constantly offered remuneration not twice but frequently many times what they are being paid in the government service. I refer to men like Dr. Hume, the director-general of scientific services; Mr. Bell, head of the geological surveys; Mr. Parsons, of the mines branch; Mr. Watson of the geographical branch and Mr. Miller of the surveys and mapping branch. I should like to see some consideration given to the men who have these skills, which are so important to the development of this country, so they could receive rewards for their services at least in part commensurate with what they could command in private industry. The legal profession has the ability to require payment for services rendered, even while the members of that profession are acting as members of this house. I should like to see consideration given these men and all the others who have technical skills which are so vital to us, to ensure that their remuneration is in line with what they could command in private industry.
Turning to the work of the department, I do not think the people of Canada are aware of what has been happening in Canada since the last war. I do not propose to go into the matter in any detail, but I want to give one or two examples of the sort of thing we have developed. There is today a practice which is known technically as shoran which permits the rapid mapping of vast territories by trilateration with a degree of accuracy which is amazing even when compared with the old triangulation system we were taught as students many years ago. I believe that is a Canadian development or one which was largely perfected in Canada. That one development has meant much to the mapping of our country, particularly to that part of it which lies more than 100 miles away from the United States boundary, that part of the country upon which our economy must more and more depend.
Then I come to an example of the difficulty of geological survey work. I think I will read part of this report to the committee because it gives some idea of the tremendous job the geological survey are attempting to

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys do and are doing in Canada. It is at page 19 and concerns the development in British Columbia. It states:
On account of the rugged terrain and accessibility factors, geological mapping of a standard Cordilleran map sheet bounded by two degrees of longitude and one degree latitude, requires a minimum of four years, which is twice the time ordinarily required for an equal area in other regions of Canada.
Not only does it require more time; it requires different equipment and more machinery and devices which have been developed by the scientists of the department.
The challenge that faces us is so tremendous that it staggers the imagination. I will just give one or two examples. I cite the metals tantalum and columbium which are essential in modern industry and which up to now have been available only in Nigeria, Brazil and the Belgian Congo. Five geologists detailed to do investigation work in the Yellowknife and Great Slave areas conducted detailed investigations at Great Slave lake; and there is a possibility that, through the work of these five geologists, this continent may become self-sufficient in those important metals. Then there is the discovery of a deposit of base metals at Campbell Chibougamau which has recently come into such prominence. That is another example of the work that is being done.
I do not propose to go further into this matter of our geology, Mr. Chairman. I do not propose to deal, except briefly, with the job that is being done in the mine dressing laboratories. The difficulty about the huge variety of different types of ore which have been developed in Canada is that they are useless unless a method of extraction can be developed and made commercially profitable. The ore dressing laboratories have done a splendid job in this regard. We who benefit by the economy of Canada owe to these scientists a debt which I think is greater than we at the present time realize.
I want to say, however, that there is one warning which should be heeded, and I think the minister brought it out when he spoke. These men who are doing this work, particularly the work of the geological survey, are making reports of a scientific nature. When those reports are completed they are of the utmost value to all the people of Canada. But those reports are the responsibility of the geologists, surveyors and technical men who prepare them. Under no circumstances should they be released until the technical men in charge have finished with them. There should be no such thing as prior information. I have seen these parties working. They say, "We hope we do not discover an ore body." I think they have
fMr. Adamson.]

been extremely accurate and ethical in the way they have presented their reports. But there is the danger that these reports receive publicity before they are finalized. I think that is one of the difficulties and one of the dangers we must guard against, in view of the tremendous amount of work that is being done at the present time.
If there is any criticism of this department, it is this. I feel that the $1,300,000 extra expenditure under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act should not be an expense against the department. That is an expense directly caused by the policy of the Department of Finance. The increase in salaries I agree with; but I should have liked to see that $1,300,000 expended on more surveys, on more geophysical work, on magnetometer work and on the discovery of more anomalies and new techniques throughout the country. As I tried to say when I began, the rate of development in Canada today absolutely defies description. It offers a challenge that no other people have ever faced, and the work cannot proceed fast enough. We are on the threshold. If we have the wisdom, if we have the political ability not to destroy the heritage which is offered to us, we can become one of the great powers because of our heritage of natural resources and particularly because of our heritage of mineral resources for which this department is responsible. I only hope we can accept that challenge and be prepared really to develop the country as the picture is just unfolding before us.


Mr. Dumas:: Under this departmental
administration item I understand that hon. members can make general remarks and comments and ask questions, if they wish to do so. I should like to congratulate the minister and his staff on the excellent idea of publishing a summary of the activities of his department. I wish also to congratulate the deputy minister and the directors of the different branches on having made this report available soon after the end of the year. Under the title "Geological Survey of Canada" we see a very clear and concise report of the work which has been done during the last year.
I should like to bring to the attention of the minister one of the desires of the prospectors of my district. Following the work done by those who are in charge of the different parties going out every summer to make a geological examination of the rock formations in the different parts of the country, preliminary blue line plans and preliminary reports are made available to those who are interested. Later a final

coloured plan and final report are also made available to the prospectors, to the mining companies and to all those who are interested in looking for new mineral discoveries. Prior to two years ago, in our district those maps and reports were made available to the prospectors through the offices of the various mining recorders, and they were distributed free of charge.
Since that time a prospector who wishes to have a map has to fill out a card and send it to the department. If the prospector is not in a hurry that is all right, but if the prospector wants the map in a hurry, then I think it is a big disadvantage to have to send to Ottawa to get it. I would suggest that the minister consider very seriously the possibility of going back to the old system of having those maps available in the offices of the mining recorders in all the provinces.
We have good reason to ask for that, and I shall cite only one example. Three years ago a very important discovery was made not far from Amos in the constituency of Chapleau. That discovery today is the Bar-vue mine. This mine will be in production within the next month or two. When the discovery was made the prospectors were interested in staking some ground surrounding that discovery. In order to make their staking as profitable or as practical as possible they naturally wanted to get some information on the geology of the district. The only way for them to get that information was to secure a map which would show the geology. If they had had to write to Ottawa to get the maps it would have taken probably four or five days or maybe a week, and by the time they received the map there would have been no ground available in the surrounding district, because a week after the discovery the whole of one township was staked and more. Therefore I would suggest to the minister that we go back to the old system, even if the department has to charge a nominal sum for those maps. I think we would render a great service to the prospectors by making these maps available through the mining recorders in the different districts.
The work being done by the geological survey branch of this department is really No. 1 work, and I wish to congratulate those who are associated with it. Many reports and maps are being published, and I see no reason why those maps and reports should not be made available to those who are really interested in them. Moreover I think it is the aim of the department to do everything it can to encourage the development of our natural resources. I am sure that if
19, 1952	3457
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys we went back to the old system of distributing those maps and reports, even if there had to be a nominal charge, everybody would be happy and more satisfied.


Clarence Gillis: I know the minister does not want to hear long speeches, and most of the members do not want to make long speeches at the present time. Everybody is tired of talking and of listening, but I have a few remarks I want to make on the estimates of this department. This is one department that it seems to me has been somewhat neglected in the past as far as discussion in the house is concerned. The estimates always went through very quietly; but new activities are being undertaken by this department as well as by others; we are becoming better acquainted with them, more services are demanded, and so forth.
When he opened the discussion of his estimates the minister stated there never was a time in the history of Canada when there was a greater search for or a greater need of minerals than at the present time. I agree with that statement. He made reference to the few observations I had made in the debate on the amendment of the leader of the opposition which dealt with the question of international markets. I am not going to go into what I said in any great detail, except to say that the action of the department in respect of my request was anything but satisfactory.
The minister has said that it was a request from a private company. It was not a request from a private company. The fact of the matter is that the people who made the request were prospectors. They had all of their analyses made and the property was practically proven; but the capital available to form the company could not be obtained until the magnetic survey was completed. That was what was required by those who had the money and were quite willing to put it into the property. But the person who had the lease on the property at the time, and who over a period of some four years did the prospecting, unfortunately died within the last month. His wife still resides in North Sydney. I do not know whether or not she is interested in going forward with the project.
The person in question, Mr. H. W. Taylor, was a prospector who had spent about four years of his time in prospecting the area. He had leased some 57 square miles from the provincial government, and was in touch with an English company that had taken some of the samples. They had agreed that if the property was developed there was a market in England for about a million tons of the ore per year.

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
I sent all the correspondence to the minister's office, and I was disappointed to learn that the survey could not be made in Nova Scotia. They did not have the necessary equipment. In view of the search for minerals now going on, and the amount of time this man and his wife had put into proving the property, I felt it was not unreasonable to ask the department to use the equipment they have to complete the survey, always having in view the possibility of developing another industry in the maritime provinces, particularly when industries are so badly needed there.
The answer I received was that surveys of that kind were not undertaken for private companies. Perhaps I would be prepared to agree with that proposition. But this was a company in the embryo stage. The survey was necessary in order to enlist capital in the company. Had that been done I am sure the rest would have followed automatically. I was disappointed by the position taken by the minister because, in reality, these two people were prospectors who had a good chance to form a prosperous company, if the survey had taken place.
It did not take place, and I would hope that the department might take a further look into the matter. I can well understand that it cannot send this type of equipment all over the country at the request of any little company that thinks it may have a prospect. That would not be reasonable. On the other hand I believe there should be enough flexibility in the administration of the department to take a look at that kind of proposition, particularly where there are extenuating circumstances involving two people of this kind who spent four years in prospecting. According to the letters and other data I have seen this was a pretty good prospect. Nevertheless, at some time in the future some other, bigger company may undertake the work.
While I am critical on this particular point, let me say that I have had pleasant experiences in dealing with another section of the minister's department. I refer to that section in which chemical analyses of minerals are made. I have had a good deal of this work done in that branch of the department, and I have always found it courteous and efficient. I would refer particularly to Mr. J. A. Fournier with whom I had the pleasure of doing business. There is no difficulty in getting the work done when it comes within the scope of that particular branch of the department.
The fact remains, however, that in respect of this survey matter I was somewhat critical. I think a mistake was made, and that it
[Mr. Gillis.l
might well be corrected the next time we have to go at this sort of thing. We learn from our mistakes. I believe we lost a company there through not making the survey available when it was required. That is all I have to say on that score.
My main reason for speaking this evening is that I am still interested in the Nova Scotia coal industry, and there are one or two things I would like to say about it. First of all, I was disappointed in a recent appointment made to the board. That was the appointment of another coal operator. I have nothing against the appointee, except that he is a coal operator. This board was recommended by the Carroll commission following its survey of the coal industry in Canada. The recommendation to establish the coal board was contained in the minority report of the commission, written by Mr. A. J. Morrison, whom the minister knows well and who comes from Alberta.
Had it not been for the unions which had pressed for the commission in order to iron out the difficulties of marketing and the future development of coal, there would not have been a coal board. The case for the board was made by the unions, and the recommendation for its establishment came from the secretary-treasurer of the miners' unions in Alberta.
For that reason I say those who dig the coal are entitled to representation on the board. When it was set up I complimented the government, and pointed out I thought it was a move in the right direction. It would result in a central body having administration over subventions, regulations, marketing and all that sort of thing. I thought it was bringing skilled organization into the field and would bring sanity to the coal industry, because it was in a pretty haphazard condition from province to province.
Well, the board was set up. When it was established the late D. W. Morrison was appointed as the representative of labour. The other members on the board were either coal operators or coal importers. We went along with that without making much protest. My view always was that it should have been divided fifty-fifty as between operators and those who dig the coal, with an independent government chairman to act as referee.
Instead of having equal representation on the board, when Mr. Morrison, the labour representative, passed away another coal operator was appointed in his place. In my opinion it is a coal board no longer; it is now a coal operators' protective association, and can be used for that purpose. The interests

of most people and most organizations are selfish; and it is only natural to expect that the coal operator on the board will be thinking of his own interests. But another person is interested, and he is the man who digs the coal. In my view he is entitled to at least some representation. I hope the minister will rectify that mistake when he gets a chance, because it is a mistake.
The man who digs the coal had some respect for that board. I never heard much criticism of it. It was always thought to be doing a good job. Now we know something about subventions, where they are going and what amount is being paid. But their representative was taken off the board and replaced by another coal operator. The picture has changed and there is a lot of resentment. It may be a small thing to the minister or the department, but it is a big thing to the man who digs coal in Alberta, in British Columbia or in Nova Scotia. He feels that the one man who could speak for him on that board was removed and replaced by a coal operator. Perhaps the minister could be excused because he has only recently taken over the department. Perhaps the minister has never rubbed shoulders with that kind of thing and does not realize the psychological damage that was done to the coal miner when the labour representative on the board was removed.
The last annual report of the department indicates that considerable attention is being paid to research and that sort of thing in connection with the coal industry. Plans are being made to find other uses for coal. However, as far the the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys is concerned, there does not seem to be much co-ordination between it and the users of coal, the Canadian National Railways, for example. The estimates indicate that $120,000 is being provided to McGill university for the purpose of developing a coal-fired turbine engine, and according to the departmental report this experiment is expected to be finished by the end of this year at which time we may have some idea what value there may be in such an engine.
Instead of the Canadian National Railways waiting to see what was going to be developed, Mr. Gordon told the committee a few weeks ago that they had a program for the complete dieselization of the Canadian National Railways-that is to use oil-which it is expected to be completed in the next five years. He stated that no more steam locomotives are being manufactured in North America, but that is not true. I have had some correspondence recently with a fairly large United States company which claims
19, 1952
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys that it is putting out a good type of coal-fired engine which compares favourably with the diesel.
What I am complaining about is that this government agency is rushing ahead as fast as it can to stop using coal on the Canadian National Railways. At the same time the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys are carrying on research to see if an engine using coal cannot be developed to operate just as efficiently and economically as a diesel engine. I think Mr. Gordon could well have carried on his program from Toronto west to a certain point and then gone rather slowly with dieselization east of Montreal.
The coal industry is most important to that part of the country, particularly to Nova Scotia. The C.N.R. market is around 288,000 tons per annum, but according to Mr. Gordon, at the end of five years that market will be pretty well wiped out. As I say, that is the main market for Nova Scotia coal.
Then we must consider natural gas. The government is granting a franchise to a company to pipe Alberta gas to Montreal and Quebec city. That gas will replace coal, not only for domestic purposes but for metallurgical purposes as well, because natural gas can be used in place of coal in any industry except basic steel. All these developments are taking place with the sanction of the government. At the same time the government is carrying on research to perpetuate the coal industry and make it more efficient. They are-putting $7,500,000 into a mechanization program for Dominion Steel and Coal. However, there is no over-all planning as far as the industry is concerned. One department seems to be working at cross purposes with the other instead of all these different people sitting down with the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys to see what can be done. In my opinion there is considerable evidence that there is no co-ordination of thinking in connection with this matter which is so vital to the economy of the country.
It is time the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys asked his colleagues in the government for a little more co-operation. I think this department is trying to do a good job in connection with this industry. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is a pretty long-headed person and I remember back in 1947 he warned the coal operators of this country that if they did not watch themselves, develop their industry, conserve resources, and bring in new techniques, in a few years they might be faced with the kind of thing the coal operators of Great Britain were faced with at that time. I think that is quite true.
Despite all these developments in gas, oil and all that kind of thing, I think we must
3460	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys realize that for a long time to come there will be a definite place for coal in the economy of North America. I think the minister should ask his colleagues whether there is any future for the coal industry in Nova Scotia. The government has a $10 million investment in the industry in the maritimes which has been made only recently. The government is helping to mechanize the industry, but what is its future? Is Mr. Gordon right in rushing ahead to dieselize the whole system? The economy of this province is being threatened, and at the same time the government is carrying on research on a turbine engine which may be more efficient and economical than the diesel. Is Mr. Gordon in too much of a hurry? What effect will natural gas have when it comes down from Alberta?
I am not against progress, but I do not think it is good sense to destroy the economy of one section of the country in order to make the cost of fuel a little less in another section. We have talked to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Labour about it. After reading this report and looking at these estimates it is evident that the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys is actually coming into its own. These matters have never been treated before as a mining proposition; everything else was dealt with, but not that. Today we have geological operations, research, subventions; all these matters are concentrated in the department. For the first time it is really getting down to business and doing a decent job.
What the minister must do is tell the other departments that they should not work at cross purposes with his. They should all sit down with the coal board and study this whole proposition before they start handing out money for pipe lines and all that kind of thing to offset the work this department is doing. While I am critical of the amount of co-operation we got in connection with the magnetic survey, from my reading of this report-I always read them-I think the department is doing the best job that has ever been done. I believe more members should take an active interest in the department and push it along a little. I do not think there is progress unless we have a little fight once in a while. That is the way we learn, and we keep people on their toes. I am quite satisfied with what the department is trying to do as far as the mining industry is concerned, but I am not satisfied with what a lot of other departments are doing to offset the work of this department. Along with research, subventions and that sort of thing, you are really getting a pretty good picture.
[Mr. Gillis.l

As we look at the estimates along the line I may have a few more questions to ask.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Before the minister answers the question of the member for Cape Breton South, could I add something along the same line? I have a communication from Alberta raising the very question which the member for Cape Breton South has raised, whether coal-burning locomotives are a thing of the past. I have here a report of a United States railway, the Norfolk and Western. As has been stated, they are carrying on experiments in coal-burning turbine electric locomotives, and they expect good results. The people in Alberta, though perhaps not so deeply concerned as the people of Nova Scotia because they are not so dependent on coal, are nevertheless concerned.
Before I take my seat I would like to ask one other question which is prompted by the remarks of the member for Cape Breton South. I refer to the inability of the government to assist private enterprise in the case he mentioned. I realize the difficulty, as he did. However, I noticed that in his preliminary remarks the minister said something to the effect that we do not compete with private industry or with the provinces. I understand the sense in which he said that. On the other hand when it comes to a case of some assistance being required it seems to me very unfortunate that it cannot be given.
I realize, as did the hon. member for Cape Breton South, what the difficulty is. He said you could not run off after every query you got. Take on the other hand the Ontario research foundation. Perhaps it went to the other extreme, but its chief purpose was to do scientific work which would directly assist private enterprise. I am not suggesting this department can conduct itself in that way. Nevertheless I find myself very interested in the two questions which the hon. member for Cape Breton South has asked and I thought that before they were answered I might associate myself with them.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the kind references which hon. members have made to the work of the department. The hon. member for York West made a reference to the shoran method of triangulation. I was very glad he mentioned that, because when our supplementary estimates come up we are going to have a large item for that very purpose. The reason is that during past years, since the war at least, the R.C.A.F. have been co-operating with us in the work. They are no longer able to continue and, as the equipment we have been using is just about worn out, we are going to have to replace it and that will cost

some hundreds of thousands of dollars. We did not know that the R.C.A.F. were withdrawing from the field when our main estimates were printed; therefore it has to come in as a supplementary.
The hon. member for York West also made reference to our ore dressing laboratory. What he said was true I think; and we have one of the most up-to-date and best laboratories of that kind in the world. He expressed a little apprehension lest prior information get out in reports from our department but I think the record of the department speaks for itself. There has never been any known instance of that happening and I am sure it is being watched very carefully.
He had criticism about the cost of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act being charged to our department. We do not particularly resent that because we are responsible for the administration of the act and the money, of course, all comes out of the consolidated revenue fund anyway. I think perhaps it is better for us who are more familiar with mining practices to have responsibility for its administration.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, I misquoted a figure. I said $1,300,000 but the actual figure is $10,800,000. I do think it is wrong for that expense, which is really a Department of Finance expense, to be charged to the technical branch.


George Prudham: The hon. member for Villeneuve referred to map distribution. At a recent prospectors' meeting in Noranda I said that we were quite willing to supply maps at provincial mining recorders' offices. My colleagues here tell me that within a very few days the mining recorders in Quebec will have a supply of our maps. We are willing to do that for other provinces as well. The card system was initiated in the first place to keep a better record of the distribution of our maps, but we realize that it has not been very convenient for the prospectors and we are willing to go back to the old method.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South has made further reference to the magnetometer survey that was requested. I think I can put his mind a little more at ease if I tell him that for the particular area that we were requested to survey we have no base maps and without base maps a magnetometer survey is useless. It so happened that this particular area is in a national park or it has been reserved for park purposes- I have not the exact details-but we have not the base maps which are necessary.
As minister of this department I am between the devil and the deep blue sea. On
19. 1952	3461
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys the one hand our department is interested in the development of gas and oil reserves in this country and I am also responsible for the dominion coal board.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which is which? Which is the devil and which is the deep blue sea?


George Prudham: I will leave that to you. We are endeavouring to keep a fair balance between all these rival interests in our department. Perhaps it is a little difficult at times, but we are putting forth quite an effort to find new uses for coal and better methods of preparation. I have quite a lengthy statement here on the work of the fuels division, especially in relation to the coal mining industry. 1 think perhaps it would be worth while putting it on the record.
Projects having a direct bearing on the coal industry have pertained mainly to research on underground mine pressures and to coal preparation methods at collieries. This twofold investigation has been and is being conducted both in western and eastern Canada with the objective of studying the economic mining of coal at depth, with special attention to the avoidance of violent pressure "bumps" and "gas outbursts", in order to allow the safe mining of coal at greater depths than is now feasible; and to work with coal mining operators in helping them to clean and improve the quality of their product for the market. Special attention has been paid to the utilization of the finer sizes of bituminous coal which predominate in Canadian mining operations. A dozen mining engineers are now conducting field work in close association with the operators in Alberta, British Columbia, and Nova Scotia.
During the past decade a systematic study of the physical and chemical characteristics of Canadian coals as mined has been carried out. To date the coals mined at 150 different collieries have been investigated, which means that the properties of coals from practically all the larger producing mines have been studied and the results reported. This investigation affords information of great value to the operators in sizing and cleaning their product for various uses.
Other projects of a minor nature of direct assistance to the coal mining industry are the analyses of mine air gases and tests on the inflammability of coal mine dusts. These are concerned mainly with mine safety measures. The publication of the Canadian coal analyses, and co-operation with purchasing agents of government departments in their coal purchases according to quality specifications, has been continued during recent years.
Long term projects, with the increased use of Canadian coals in view, pertain to its use
3462	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys in a coal-fired gas turbine unit and to producing synthetic liquid fuels by hydrogenation. The objective of the first is to develop a coal-fired gas turbine primarily for locomotive use. If such a prime mover can be produced it will benefit the coal mining industry by retaining part of the coal market that will otherwise be lost to diesel or other types of oil-fired locomotives. The railways will also benefit because coal is generally the cheapest fuel on the basis of heating value.
The general purpose of the hydrogenation project is to investigate and improve upon partly developed methods for converting coal and heavy petroleum oil crudes to high grade liquid fuels. The Canadian reserve of petroleum, which is fast approaching the country's peacetime requirements, would not satisfy the demand if petroleum from the Middle East and South America were drastically restricted under wartime conditions.
Domestic stoker coal and coking investigations should also be mentioned. The increased use of Canadian coal in domestic stokers is under constant study. Installation of an experimental testing unit has been completed, and a series of tests has begun to compare the value of Canadian coals with standard imported coals; and the results are expected to be of assistance to manufacturers of equipment in improving stoker design.
Experiments were recently conducted on the blending of western bituminous coals, particularly from the Crowsnest area, to aid in promoting the increased and more efficient use of Canadian coals for making coke for foundry and other metallurgical uses. With the object of materially improving the physical properties of metallurgical coke for use in blast furnaces at steel plants in the east, the blending of Nova Scotia coals varying considerably in volatile matter content is also being intensely investigated.
In co-operation with the dominion coal board the division of fuels has recently completed a survey of the industrial market for Canadian coals. It has been concluded that there is a market for approximately one million additional tons of these coals a year, provided the coals meet minimum requirements in regard to cost and delivery.


Mr. Blackmore:: I was interested in the statement the minister made, Mr. Chairman, but I think what the house wants to know is what the results are. Has the department discovered what are the possibilities now of Alberta coals sharing in the Ontario market, which it would seem that they ought to do both from the standpoint of Alberta and from the standpoint of Ontario in case there


should be any interruption in supply from across the line. Of course that is a subject that is of interest to one who represents a coal mining riding, as I do.


George Prudham: I would prefer to allow that question to stand until we reach the coal board's estimates. We are probably straying a little from the subject.


John Horne Blackmore: That will be in the
minister's own estimates tonight?


George Prudham: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell the committee what the present situation is with regard to the mining of uranium in Canada?


George Prudham: The mining of uranium, of course, is the responsibility of the Eldorado Mining and Refining Company. The tonnages mined are secret, and we have not that information. Our department does work on the treatment of radioactive ores, but we have no information on the mining activity.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In his
opening remarks the minister said the department was careful not to compete either with private enterprise or with the provinces. Can the minister indicate just what is the line of demarcation between the work of the dominion department and the provincial departments? Is it purely geographical or is it functional?


George Prudham: This department does the over-all geology and map making. The provinces, generally speaking, do the detailed mapping and the detailed geology of local areas, as well as the work directly connected with the mining ventures.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I think the minister might explain how his department works in with the provincial departments of mines. For instance, take the Red Lake survey, which is an Ontario mining map. I think the committee would be interested in knowing the way the country is divided, that is where the Ontario department of mines does the surveying and makes the geological report and where the federal department does it.


George Prudham: There is no definite line of demarcation between the work of the two departments. We are always careful to coordinate these efforts. Sometimes one provincial department will be willing or perhaps better qualified to do a certain project and that will be left to them. There are very amicable and cordial relations, generally speaking, between this department and the provincial departments of mines. We do not have any difficulty in deciding which work belongs to whom.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It is said that there is no overlapping. Let us consider a new district like Chibougamau; it is really not a new district but an old district that has come into its own after many years of frustration and trouble. In so far as the general geological surveys are concerned, naturally the department of mines of Quebec has had nothing to do with that district; or is that so?


George Prudham: Generally speaking the basic geology and the basic maps are prepared many years in advance by this department. Then when a discovery is made the province comes into the picture and takes on the more detailed work in connection with the specific area.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was quite interested in the question asked by the member for Greenwood, because I was going to ask a similar question. I have seen provincial parties doing triangulation work and contour surveys in connection with forest surveys. Then a year or so later along comes a federal party and does triangulation work and a contour survey. Is there any consultation with the provincial departments to stop all unnecessary duplication and overlapping?


George Prudham: The hon. member is referring to the British Columbia government, no doubt, and this department actually prints many of the maps for that government. We try to see that there is no overlapping. We do not know of any.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not want to press this unduly but I confess it does not seem to me that merely because there is cordiality between departments there is a sensible division of the work. Indeed, if I had taken strictly the words the minister used a moment ago, I would have thought it rather looked as if there were duplication. As I understood it, he said his department dealt with a certain area in a rather more general way, and then the provincial department came along and did it in a more particular way. I am not a geologist and I am not competent to ask the question in any detailed way; but I confess that at the moment I am quite unable to see how there is any sensible line of demarcation as I think there should be and as I hope there is.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, I believe there are a few constitutional reasons that probably vary somewhat between different provinces. I do not know those details. I am not versed in that subject. I am told that perhaps British Columbia would have a slightly different set-up because of the terms under which it came into confederation. Generally speaking this department has no direct responsibility for the mineral resources. The province has control of its mineral
19, 1952
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys resources. We are a surveys department. We endeavour to perform an over-all service for Canada and for industry. The province has a primary responsibility for the resources. Generally speaking we work on the over-all geological survey of the country and the preparation of the base maps. The provinces then take over in their own particular areas.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the minister really mean that the dominion department in effect do what they are asked to do by the provinces? Is it the province which determines what assistance it wants and then it gets it? Is that the system? If that were the system I could understand it. Otherwise I am still left with the fear that there is duplication and overlapping.


The Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Drew:: Before the minister answers that question, may I raise another one related to the same subject. As in every other department, we see a substantial increase in the cost of administration. We are told that the government recognizes the need for some measure of economy. We have not yet been able to see, in the estimates presented by this or any other department, much evidence of that recognition. In view of the declarations that have been made that some attempts are under way to find possibilities of economy, I should like to know whether in fact there has been any careful examination of the many duties carried out by this department in relation to the departments of mines in the provinces in order to see whether there are not ways in which savings can be made by avoiding duplication as between the various departments.


George Prudham: To answer the leader of the opposition first, may I say that is constantly done. We have mines ministers' conferences. The provincial ministers have a meeting at least once a year, at which representatives of this government are present. We endeavour at all times to avoid duplication of effort and expense. I can assure the hon. member that from day to day we are watching everything possible in this department. We are endeavouring to save money at all times and to get the maximum results.
I can give the hon. member for Greenwood an outstanding example of federal-provincial co-operation. It was with respect to the magnetometer survey that was made of Ontario recently and which resulted in the discovery of the Marmora iron deposits and other deposits that are now being investigated. That was a co-operative venture shared by this department and the department of mines of the province of Ontario.
3464	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does that survey also include the deposit in Simcoe?


George Prudham: No; that was their own work in the province of Ontario.


George Alexander Drew: I know there has been a large measure of co-operation between the departments in many respects. I know something of the conferences that take place between the ministers of mines. I must say I cannot agree that these conferences ordinarily have anything whatever to do with an examination of the kind I suggest. In view of the fact that the minister has said that these examinations are taking place constantly, can he produce by way of illustration any recent report that would indicate the exact nature of the examination and survey that takes place of the comparative services performed by his department and by the provincial departments?


George Prudham: There is no published report of that type; but every year, before the field season opens, our chief geologist and our director of scientific surveys contacts the various provincial departments and discusses the program for the coming season. They in turn state their plans. Their over-all season's work is planned in that way.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I think the answer is simply that there has been no real examination of the possibility of avoiding duplication. I say that in view of the fact that requests have been made for some time for an examination of the various departmental activities. I know this matter was under discussion some years ago. I have not been able to find anything in the nature of a real examination of the functions of the department. Even if only a few thousand dollars are saved, I think the time is overdue for a rationalization of the functions of a dominion department and a provincial department where they occupy the same field. I am saying that in relation not only to this department but in relation to other departments where they occupy the same fields. Can the minister explain to us just exactly how this examination has been carried out, if in fact examinations of that kind have been carried out in recent months or years?


George Prudham: In Canada we have a national advisory council consisting of representatives from each provincial government, from all the main universities, from the federal government and two from industry. They talk over this very problem. They meet at least twice a year. While they have no official authority they act in an advisory way to all governments concerned.


George Alexander Drew: So that we will know what is being done in order to effect some economies


-even though they be only a few thousand dollars it would be helpful-can the minister refer us to any recommendations from this advisory council with regard to any details that have been put into effect for the purpose of producing economies by the avoidance of duplication?


George Prudham: I think such a report could be made. I do not know of any concise report that is available at the moment.


George Alexander Drew: I simply bring these remarks to a conclusion, Mr. Chairman, by saying that from the answers that have been given I am satisfied that such an examination has not been made. All I can do at this time is urge the minister to adopt the same course that would be adopted in ordinary business practice where different companies are associated in a similar business and where, invariably, they have a careful examination made to see that there is avoidance of duplicating services.
In this instance we have a department which is occupying in some measure one of the fields that under our constitutional allocation of authority is under the jurisdiction of the provinces. That does not apply to every department. It does apply to this department; it does apply to the department of health. It applies to several of the other departments, and I can only urge in all sincerity that a real effort be made to examine most carefully into the functions of the department and see whether savings -and substantial savings-cannot be made by rationalizing the relationship of these departments.


James Joseph McCann: After listening to the remarks of the leader of the opposition with reference to this department I am going to make a few observations, because I feel that perhaps I have a little background in connection with this department.
I was the first minister when the department was organized. I will admit that I was perhaps a little sceptical, too, as the leader of the opposition is, that there might be duplication of services as between the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the various departments of mines of the different provinces. After a rather thorough examination I was convinced that such condition did not actually exist.
If one goes over the history of the old department of mines and resources he will find that mines was one particular branch of it. I can give the committee illustrations to indicate the great advantage that has been enjoyed by this country in the development of its natural resources because of the fact that the mines branch existed.

Before me here this evening is the director of scientific services who as a young man, twenty-five or thirty years ago, was out in the province of Alberta on geological surveys for a number of years, and to him and to his staff more than to any other group of people in this Dominion of Canada may be credited today the wonderful development that is going on at this time in the Alberta oil fields. Had it not been for the fact that geological surveys were made in that province thirty years ago and the mapping was done, there would not be the development there is today in the province of Alberta.
The function of the department lies in finding out where these resources are, in presenting maps that geologists and prospectors may use. I will give a typical example, which is a true one. Years and years ago in the Eldorado district where the present great deposit of uranium is in this country, maps were made and it was indicated, and it was on the records here in Ottawa, that there was a deposit of uranium in that country. Gilbert La Bine, who organized the Eldorado Mining Company as a result of that map, went into that country and found and developed one of the greatest resources we have in Canada today, a resource which was taken over by the government of this country at a time when it was very urgently needed.
The function that has been carried out for years is for the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys to make these geological and geodetic surveys, to prepare the maps which are freely available to any citizen of this country who is interested in the development of the mining resources.
The function of the provincial people is mostly in the line of development. These resources belong to the provinces. They have been developed by the provinces. In the province of Ontario the great development that took place in the Cobalt country, in Kirkland lake and in the Porcupine; the development in northwestern Quebec, where hundreds of millions of dollars have come into the coffers of the people of this country, have been the result of the initial surveys and developments of the department of mines of the federal government.
Do you know what the mineral wealth of this country is at the present time? Last year $1,200 million of new wealth was taken out of the ground in Canada. That is growing yearly, and the time is not far distant when wealth to the value of $2 billion will be developed from the mining and oil industry of Canada. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that the money spent by this department is well spent. True the costs of administration may have gone up. They have gone up in
19. 1952	3465
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys every government department. Why? Because of increased wages, because of the fact that all the materials which are being used have increased in price, because of the increases in staff and in highly paid technical people who are necessary in order to carry on this work. For instance, take the hydrographic surveys. We are mapping the seas of this country, mapping out where the fishing areas are; and in times of war or potential war these hydrographic surveys are of great benefit to this country for our own protection. It is costly to maintain ships, as they do in the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys; therefore costs must necessarily go up.
Without speaking at any greater length, Mr. Chairman, I must say I cannot agree with the leader of the opposition. I feel that perhaps he is not as well informed as he might be with reference to the function of the various departments provincially and federally. But the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys federally are doing the fundamental work, the a, b, c work, with reference to the development of the resources of Canada, and in the main the provinces are reaping the benefit.


George Alexander Drew: It would be easy to agree with and support most of what the minister has said except the wholly unnecessary concluding remarks; because the minister was nearly correct in most of what he said.
The fact is that the development of mining in this country has been remarkable and a challenging story of development. Nothing that I have said in any way changes that. In fact what I have said on numerous occasions in this house and elsewhere is that there is no more challenging story in Canada than the story of mineral discovery, very largely related to the information which has been made available through the various departments in regard to mineral possibilities. I would ask the minister, however, simply so that a very remarkable story shall not be confused, to check back on his story about Gilbert La Bine, because it was an even more remarkable story than he has indicated. It was remarkable because of the fact that there was no accurate map at the time he made the discovery. The maps we now have which show the location of the Eldorado mine are, as a matter of fact, the result of the work done under another estimate which will appear later, which provides for the photographing of the great territories of this country where other kinds of mapping may not have taken place.


James Joseph McCann: It was indicated long before that, because Gilbert La Bine told me himself.
3466	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


George Alexander Drew: Yes, it was indicated in 1780, which was long before this government came to power, and it was actually on a map drawn by Hearne at the time he made a trip down from Coppermine through that area. I am not saying this facetiously. I am saying it because I believe it is one of the most remarkable and challenging stories in our mineral history. Samuel Hearne recorded seeing evidence of mineral outcroppings at what later turned out to be the very point where Gilbert La Bine discovered what became the Eldorado mine.
I am not raising this by way of criticism.
I am only saying that it is a fantastic story, and that the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys itself can claim great credit for the fact that after discovery was made, through co-operation with the air services very accurate maps of that whole tremendous mineral area were prepared by air photography. What I do want to emphasize is this. No one is more convinced than I of the immense possibilities of mineral development in this country. This department has been doing excellent work for many years, before there were departments of mines in some of the provinces and in fact before some of those provinces had established claim to these resources. This department is doing excellent work today. Throughout the years the men who have served the department have established a name for devotion to service, and highly efficient service, that is recognized throughout the world. No one would be more anxious than I to make sure their services are recognized. I am not talking about the efforts made by individuals; I am not talking about individual devotion to service; I am not talking about the great achievements of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. I am simply suggesting that in this huge business of government under a federal system, where departments are occupying the same fields, in the light of the excellent things that are being done, and of the increased responsibility, there should be an attempt to save money where money can be saved. I suggest that an effort be made to get the departments together and examine xhe possibility of co-ordinating their activities in a manner that will make it possible to perform their service on the most economical basis.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
228. To provide for payments to McGill university in connection with the development of a coal-fired gas turbine, $120,000.
William Joseph Browne: What progress has been made in this project?


George Prudham: The experiment has progressed to the point where they are constructing a working model. It is hoped that before the end of the year it will be in operation for the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Geological surveys-
229. Administration, operation and maintenance, including the expenses of the national advisory committee on research in the geological sciences, and an amount of $2,200 for Canada's share of the cost of the committee on mineral resources and geology, London, England, $2,202,873.
William Joseph Browne: How many geological survey parties will be out in Newfoundland this year?


George Prudham: Hon. members will be interested in their respective provinces, so I shall place the full information on the record. In the Northwest Territories there will be 6; in Yukon Territory, 6; in British Columbia, 15; in Alberta, 8; in Saskatchewan, 5; in Manitoba, 4; in Ontario, 6; in Quebec, 6; in Quebec (Labrador), 4; in New Brunswick, 3; in Nova Scotia, 3 and in Newfoundland, 7.


Howard Charles Green: How many of those parties are out on oil and gas territory?


George Prudham: There are 5 altogether.


Howard Charles Green: In which provinces?


George Prudham: There are 4 in Alberta and 1 in Ontario.	,


Howard Charles Green: Is any survey work of this type being done in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba?


George Prudham: We have a regional office in Calgary which is co-ordinating all the information in respect of wells being drilled on the prairies, including the Peace river section of British Columbia. They keep a record of all cores, and that record is kept up to date.


Howard Charles Green: What is the connection of this department with the operations of the Emerald tungsten mine in southern British Columbia?


George Prudham: We have nothing to do with the operation of the mine, but we are doing work on the metal recovery, in which we are trying to increase the yield of metal from the ore.


Howard Charles Green: Does the department have any working arrangement with the Department of Defence Production in connection with the production of strategic minerals?


George Prudham: Yes, we have special arrangements. The men in our department act in an advisory capacity, on occasions. We have two on loan at the present time for that purpose.


Agar Rodney Adamson: What is the procedure when a prospector finds radioactive ore? What does he do, and how does the department help him? Some years ago it was believed that thorium, which is a radioactive mineral, was not known in Canada. Have any deposits of thorium been discovered in this country, and what is the procedure when radioactive thorium is discovered?


George Prudham: Our department has published a booklet intended for the use of prospectors, and I should be very glad to send my hon. friend a copy of it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am familiar with that booklet. However, I believe the committee would like to have more general information because we know that, in connection with the geology of Canada, there is now an amazing variety of places in which radioactive deposits have been located. These have been found where, years ago, it was never expected they would be found. I believe a short general statement of what should be done would be of interest to the committee. Not only are the prospectors interested, but others are also interested because radioactive ore has been discovered in places we never dreamed of looking even as recently as the close of the last war.


George Prudham: Our geological survey maps indicate where uranium is likely to be found. We also keep an inventory of radioactive properties. We send a geologist around every year to inspect all newly reported discoveries. If the hon. member wishes I could furnish him with more detailed information, but at the moment I do not have it with me.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Has thorium been discovered to any extent in Canada?


George Prudham: I am told that thorium is known to exist in the Wilberforce area of Ontario. As there is no general use for the mineral at the present time there has not been very much interest in it.


Howard Charles Green: Is the geological survey branch working toward a complete geological map of Canada? Is that a long-term process?


George Prudham: We are working to that end, but it will take many years.


Howard Charles Green: I am not questioning the value because I know it is of great value, but I understand it is hoped eventually to have the whole country surveyed geologically.


George Prudham: Yes, but it will take many years. I cannot say just how long. The same is true with the hydrographic survey, which may be going on for hundreds of years.
19, 1952	3467
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


Howard Charles Green: I believe there was a commitment to conduct a geological survey of Newfoundland. What progress is being made?


George Prudham: At the present time we have seven field parties working which are concentrating on a strip across the centre of the island from coast to coast. We are making as rapid progress as we can.


William Joseph Browne: I notice there is an increase from $15,000 to $148,200 for the charter of aircraft, and I was wondering if that is explained by thfe aeromagnetic survey?


George Prudham: A large part of that increase is accounted for by a special project of a helicopter survey from the east end of Great Slave lake to Hudson bay. This will be over virgin territory about which little is known. We think it is a highly mineralized area which may have prospects in connection with strategic minerals.


William Joseph Browne: Is that an
aeromagnetic survey?


George Prudham: No, it is just a preliminary
geological survey.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister mentioned radioactive ores in the Wilberforce area in Hali-burton county. I understand that those ores are nearly as good as the Eldorado ore. They tried to get the government interested but they seemed to give them the cold shoulder, from what I could make out.


George Prudham: Our information is that the deposit is partly radioactive thorium. The mineralogy is not fully understood as yet.


William Joseph Browne: Are the
specimens in the museum kept up to date and is there sufficient space for specimens from the newer discoveries?


George Prudham: The museum comes under the Department of Resources and Development. I know they are crowded for space. We keep only representative samples there at the present time. We would like to do more, but I believe they are severely cramped for accommodation.


William Joseph Browne: Is there any place in the country where all the specimens may be seen?


George Prudham: No.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I would hope to see the day when the geological survey branch and its staff are removed completely from the museum. Despite the drive for economy I think this is necessary as the poor old museum is having a pretty sick time of it.
3468	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys Everything is cramped, most of the specimens are stored and as far as I can see will be stored for all time. It is like an iceberg; there is more underground than can be seen by the public. On the whole I think it is rather tragic. Perhaps when our expenses for national defence decrease there may be some improvement in that connection. That is a goal toward which we can work. What research is being done in connection with permafrost? I understand that some work is being done along this line which I believe would come dnder the geological survey.


George Prudham: We have one project at Resolute Bay where they are diamond-drilling to find the depth of the permafrost. With regard to my hon. friend's earlier remarks, I must say that this branch is sadly underhoused. We need a geological building where we could display the samples and efficiently carry on many other operations. If we get an estimate for a new building past the treasury board some day I hope my hon. friend will support us.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Surveys and mapping branch-
232. Surveys and mapping branch administration, $40,796.
William Joseph Browne: Does the department have anything to do with determining the boundary between Quebec and Labrador?


George Prudham: This department carries out boundary surveys at the request of the provinces, but up to date we have had no request for that particular survey.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian hydrographic service-
234. Administration, operation and maintenance, including Canada's annual contribution of $5,750 to the international hydrographic bureau, $2,083,822.
William Joseph Browne: Is it proposed to conduct any surveys in Newfoundland waters and, if so, where will they be conducted?


George Prudham: In Labrador, Battle Harbour is a defence project and Hopedale is a further defence project. In Newfoundland, Placentia Bay, a defence project; Conception Bay, also a defence project; Newfoundland harbours, a resources and industrial development, plus general naval requirements.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
237. International boundary commission-administration, operation and maintenance, $61,292.
Stanley Howard Knowles: What are the present functions of this commission?


George Prudham: The purpose of this vote is to enable Canada to fulfil her treaty obligations of maintaining the international boundary in a state of effective demarcation. This includes the clearing of boundary vistas, the repairing and resetting of monuments, the maintenance of boundary range lines, etc. as required under the treaty. Some 5,600 miles of boundary line between Canada and the United States and between Canada and Alaska are involved.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They ought to put up "no smuggling" signs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
238. Legal surveys and aeronautical charts-administration, operation and maintenance, including a grant of $350 to the Canadian Institute of Surveying and Photogrammetry and the expenses of the board of examiners for dominion land surveyors and payment of fees of B. W. Waugh, J. E. Lilly and J. E. R. Ross, members of the board, and A. W. Cole, secretary of the board, $630,195
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I would just like to ask why there is an increase in this item of $81,000.


George Prudham: The total increase in salaries under this item is $34,213, of which $28,000 is for increased rates of pay and $27,000 additional is provided for hire of outside land surveyors, largely for surveys on Indian reserves. Then $16,000 is provided for radar altimeter work.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Why should the increase for surveys on Indian reserves all be thrown into this year?


George Prudham: This department, under the dominion lands act, does all the surveys that are required by statute to be done by dominion land surveyors. We undertake this work at the request of other departments-the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Indian affairs branch, the Department of Resources and Development-and for any other federal property that requires survey.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You mentioned $27,000 on account of surveys for the Indian affairs branch?


George Prudham: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What was the amount last year? Is this for special reserves or does this $27,000 cover more than one reserve?


George Prudham: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it would be for more than one reserve. I have not the details here as yet but I am informed that last year the amount was about $22,000 and this year it is $49,000.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is an additional $27,000.


William Joseph Browne: I would like to ask one question on this item. Would the

minister mind informing me of the meaning of "legal surveys"? They are not done for private individuals are they?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It means they are not illegal.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, "legal surveys" is a term used to describe the work carried on by this department to establish boundaries and various legal subdivisions coming under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I believe that when our dominion land survey bill was before the house last year it was set out that where there is a common boundary between private property and crown lands the individual adjoining can request that a provincial surveyor also participate in the survey. They delineate demarcation of ownership as it affects federal land.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion coal board-
246. Administration and investigations of the dominion coal board, $111,753.
John Horne Blackmore: This is an item on which I take it the minister will agree to have a full discussion. I may say that we in Alberta feel that the dominion coal board has let us down altogether in the matter of our coal. There was a time when they gave us a substantial subvention to help us get coal into the Ontario market.
As a result of the present situation I would like to ask the minister some questions. He no doubt agrees with me but being a member of the government he is in a rather difficult position; but I will ask these questions: First, how many areas in Alberta produce coal fully suitable for transportation to Ontario and for sale in Ontario; and I will ask which areas? Second, how great a subvention would be necessary to render it possible to deliver such coal in Ontario on a basis permitting successful competition, that is of course competition with coals coming in from the United States or any other place? Third, how much of a subvention is now being paid? Fourth, if there has been a reduction of the subvention in whole or in part during the last ten years, how great a reduction has taken place? Fifth, how much coal was imported from the United States in each of the years 1949, 1950 and 1951?
I think probably it will take the minister a few minutes to get the answers to those questions and during that time I would like to make these observations.
As is well known there are a number of kinds of coal in Alberta ranging all the way from lower bituminous, what we might call soft bituminous, up to close to anthracite, coal which could probably very well be 55704-219J
19. 1952	3469
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys classified as anthracite. During the years I have been in parliament a number of reasons have been advanced why it was not feasible to bring Alberta coal down into competition in Ontario. In my own opinion most of those reasons were just pure pretence. I have had the impression that there have been big interests in the United States with representatives in governing circles, and I won't say where, who have been persistently exercising an influence against the bringing of Alberta coal into Ontario, in my judgment to the serious disadvantage of both the west and the east. The questions I have asked are designed partly to uncover the situation and my colleagues and I will probably have something more to say as this information develops. The hon. member for Macleod and the hon. member for Red Deer have both been awaiting an opportunity of raising this question. I just happened, by accident, to get in first. They are just as keenly interested as I am, and I am saying this so no one will believe I was the one who brought it up and they were not going to do so.


George Prudham: In answer to the hon. member's first question, I would say that all coal produced in Alberta is suitable for marketing in Ontario.


John Horne Blackmore: May I just raise a question there to help the minister. There are some coals, of course, which they have said would seriously disintegrate on the trip east. They raise that as an objection, you see. They say there is too much water in it or too little water, but like most excuses I do not think it would hold water.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Somebody is all wet.


George Prudham: Over the past years we have been carrying on discussions with the Alberta minister of mines with a view to establishing a standard of quality for coals that would be most suitable for the Ontario market. The dominion coal board has agreed to co-operate in such an effort. Considerable work has been done in gathering information on the qualities, moisture content, the b.t.u. value and so on of various coals. The Alberta government has agreed to police the quality regulations that are finally decided upon. In other words, any coal that is eligible for subvention assistance under the auspices of the dominion coal board will have to have the stamp of approval as to quality from the Alberta government.
The amount of subvention necessary to compete is the subvention we are now paying. The subvention rate is designed to make Alberta coal competitive with United States coal imported into eastern markets. The maximum being paid is $3.50 in southern Ontario
3470	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys areas. There has been no reduction in the subvention since it was first instituted. The amount of coal imported into Canada in Various years is as follows:
U.S.	U.S.	BritishYear	Bituminous	Anthracite	AnthraciteTons	Tons	Tons1947-1948 .,	... 25,079,000	4,576,000	55,0001948-1949 ..	... 24,980,000	4,584,000	191,0001949-1950 .	.. . 15,382,000	3,810,000	354,0001950-1951 .	. .. 23,688,000	4,090,000	398,000


Mr. Shaw:: Earlier this session, Mr. Chairman, I directed certain remarks of mine to the coal industry, particularly as it applies to my province; and after all Alberta is that Canadian province in which the greater amount of coal is produced. It also represents the area in which we have the greatest known reserves. I just happen to represent a constituency in which coal mining is an important industry.
When I raised this question earlier I emphasized two important facts. First, I am inclined to believe that today the Canadian coal mining industry is deteriorating. I think all the evidence one is able to gather indicates that this is a fact. In the second place I emphasized the fact that should a war break out and our oil supplies in the Middle East be cut off, as I am afraid they would be, we would find ourselves calling upon the coal industry for substantial assistance just as we did during the last war. I am very much afraid, Mr. Chairman, if this condition of deterioration continues, and war does break out, we are going to call upon that industry to do what I am afraid it will be utterly incapable of doing. Once our coal mines are permitted to deteriorate to the point where they close and the workers are dispersed in other industries in Canada, then it becomes a problem of the first magnitude to get those mines back into operation.
I have gathered a few figures, but before I refer to those may I say to the minister that I am particularly pleased to learn that the closest co-operation exists between the minister of mines in Alberta, Mr. Tanner, and the coal board with respect to laying down quality regulations, as well as the stamping of coal that does attain a certain quality in order that we may be assured of our best quality coal being shipped into central Canada. The minister indicated that while there has been no change in the subvention, it still represents an amount which enables us to put Alberta coal into central Canada-


George Prudham: I am sure the hon. member is misinformed. The subvention rate was increased last year.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am sorry, but I understood the minister to say there had been no change. Even so, I would remind the minister of the freight increases which have taken place during the last year-


George Prudham: Not since the subvention rate was increased.


Frederick Davis Shaw: -which must have an effect upon the position of our Alberta coal in relation to coal which is marketed in central Canada.
In 1948 the Alberta industry produced
8,110,000	tons of coal. There was an increase in 1949 to 8,616,983 tons. We find a very sharp decline in 1950 to 8,138,206 tons, and a further substantial decline in 1951 to 7,661,276 tons. I fully realize that this decline in coal production in Alberta has been coincidental with, and one might even say attributable to, the increase in competition from laboursaving fuels, marketing difficulties due to freight rate increases and so on over the past several years. I do not believe there is any argument either about the obvious advantages of labour-saving, clean fuel; advantages which have enabled natural gas, for example, to supplant coal as a domestic and industrial fuel in most of our urban areas and larger towns in western Canada, particularly in my own province of Alberta.
Increasing competition has been felt, so the mine operators say, from liquid petroleum gases such as propane and butane, and from fuel oil in some rural areas. One of the things that does concern me is this.
During the past number of years the railways have represented our most substantial consumer of coal. According to figures which I have, in 1948 the railways consumed 2,312,273 tons of Alberta coal. In 1949 it went up to 3,126,425 tons; in 1950 to 3,308,365 tons. Then there was a sharp decline in 1951 to 2,443,326 tons. The railways which in the past have provided the largest non-seasonal market for Alberta coal are proceeding with a plan which will ultimately result in the conversion to diesel power of both of our transcontinental system. In the meantime an increasingly large number of steam locomotives are using fuel oil rather than coal. This oil, of course, is obtained as a by-product of light fuel production at refineries using light crude stock or from the particular heavy crude fuels such as those we find in Lloyd-minster, Vermilion and Wainwright. This railway conversion program apparently completely ignores the possibility that in the case of war or in case of any national emergency there may be an acute oil shortage, as I have already stated, and in the meantime some of our mines may have had to close down with the resultant dispersal of trained

personnel. I think that is a matter to which the railways themselves should give serious consideration.
I have already mentioned the competition from other forms of fuel. While facing that unabated competition from other types of fuel, coal mine operators have had to contend with constantly increasing marketing costs brought on, I would say, in the main by freight rate increases over the past several years.


John Horne Blackmore: And production costs.


Frederick Davis Shaw: And production costs. The increased production costs resulting in substantial part from heavier shipping costs brought about by freight rate increases have meant substantially increased overhead costs, thus placing the mines in an extremely inferior marketing position. Each increase in freight rates has further restricted markets when the industry is in no position to absorb these extra costs. If one examines the facts of the case I think he will find that every time we have had a freight rate increase in Canada we have lost markets for Alberta coal. They were simply put in this difficult position where they could not compete at all with imported coals.
To meet this situation which threatens death by strangulation if a large increase in production should be requested-such as, I might emphasize, was obtained by the federal government during the last war-efforts are being made to prepare more marketable products from coal. I think that is probably one of the healthy signs. I am going to ask the minister a few questions with respect to that matter. When I say that the industry is threatened by strangulation, I think I am not stating anything that is foreign to the facts which exist at the present time. I know it can be said that the number of mines in operation in Alberta, for example, has increased since 1948 from 94 to 104 in the case of subsurface mines. There has been a decrease in strip mine operations during the same period of time. But while there has been an actual increase in the number of subsurface mines operating between 1948 and 1951, I think the facts are that most of the increase in mining operations is represented in the smaller mines or the family mines, as we know them. The significant fact, of course, is that during those four years we have had an important decline in actual coal production.
I realize fully that certain efforts are being made to produce other products from coal in my province. As I said a moment ago, in that connection I think I see a hopeful sign. I have noticed that they are concentrating more and more upon the manufacture
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys of briquettes. That procedure is going on in the Coalspur, Mountain Park, the Crows-nest pass, Canmore and Seebe areas in Alberta. Coke is also processed in Coleman. I am told that greater attention is being given to the manufacture of coke and briquettes. There seems to be a rather satisfactory market for those products.
I am going to ask the minister if he has any information with respect to "fabricoal". I am not too certain what it is. I know that at Big Valley, Alberta, activity has been under way for some time, and I understand that about 1,742 tons of that product were marketed outside of the province last year. As I say, I do not know exactly what "fabricoal" is but I am particularly interested in it. If it represents an activity that might provide further marketing opportunities for Alberta coal, it is of course natural that we are all for it. I should like to have the minister comment upon that matter, if he will, when I am finished.
I should like to stress the point that the thing I fear above all else is deterioration in the coal mining industry to or beyond the point where we may find it utterly impossible to rehabilitate that industry in time of great emergency. I know that certain changes are conceivably inevitable. I realize fully, of course, that if one has an opportunity to burn gas, he is not likely to burn coal when it represents a product that is dirtier to handle, shall we say, and which, through the process of combustion, produces ashes which have to be removed.
I also appreciate that it may be quite natural for the railroads to move from coal burners to oil burners. But I think the one thing the railroads should realize is that this may not be the proper time to do that. If the international picture were somewhat different from the one we see at the present time, then I would say: "Surely; move along in unrestricted fashion in this process of conversion." But I am a bit fearful. I am not talking for a handful of coal miners who may be in my constituency because I realize that it is quite possible, without too much difficulty, to rehabilitate coal miners and move them into other industries. But I know you cannot move them back as easily as you can move them out. In the light of the international situation I am fearful that we may not be doing all we can to keep this industry in a healthy state in order to meet any emergency that might develop.
I wish the minister would go into this question of subventions a little more fully. Have subvention increases kept pace with increased transportation costs? Can he give us some further information with respect to
3472	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys new processes such as the manufacture of "fabricoal"? Can he give us comparative figures with regard to retail prices of imported United States domestic coal, as we sometimes call it, in Ontario and Alberta coal which is brought into Ontario and sold for what we call domestic purposes there? I well recall that a few years ago I procured figures which indicated that Alberta coal could be laid down in Ontario on a competitive basis outside of lake port areas such as Hamilton and Toronto. This was a number of years ago. From a dollars and cents point of view, having regard to all the costs involved, I wonder whether Alberta coal can today be laid down in central Canada on a competitive basis. I have one more question. What is being done by the coal board to advertise Canadian coal and to assist in the consumption of Canadian coal, a Canadian product, in central Canada? The hon. member for Lethbridge said a moment ago that a lot of propaganda has gone out from time to time with respect to Alberta coal being an inferior product. As a matter of fact, at one time it was even said they shipped low-grade coal into Ontario to prove that it was no good. I would hate to think that is being done; yet I am not surprised at anything nowadays.


John Horne Blackmore: I am afraid it was done.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Well, 1 think it was, but I hope it is not being done today, because those of us who are familiar with Drumheller lump coal know there is no better domestic coal in this country, and I doubt whether there is any better domestic coal anywhere. I would appreciate what information the minister can give, if he can give me a bit more confidence than I have at the present time with respect to the future of this industry.


George Prudham: The hon. gentleman has asked what the coal board is doing to advertise Alberta coal. Well, it is not the function of the coal board to do that.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Canadian coal?


George Prudham: Canadian coal; it is not the function of the coal board to advertise. If we believe in private enterprise that is the function of the coal operators themselves. I had that question put to me last fall by one of the coal operators' associations. They said: "You have been minister for eight months; what have you done to help us?" I said: "What have you done to help yourselves?" They said: "We have not done anything"; to which I replied: "As soon as you show signs of helping yourselves I will get right behind you, but I am not a Joe-boy for the coal industry". I can say for the coal board that
IMr. Shaw.]

they are there to help in any way they can, but the onus is not on the coal board specifically. It is still primarily a problem for the industry. I think that they can do a better job in advertising, processing and selling their own product.


Frederick Davis Shaw: You give them advice.


George Prudham: This applies especially to the western points.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Do you give them advice?


George Prudham: Yes, we do. The hon. member referred to "fabricoal". I have never heard the name before; but during my inspection trip of the Alberta mines I stopped at Big Valley and saw that operation. It was still in the experimental stage. They had a compressor there, compressing slack coal into bricks. At that time the machine was not working properly. They were having a lot of trouble, but I heard that they have since perfected the process. It seems that the coal was shipped to Texas, or wherever this machine is manufactured, from this particular mine. It worked perfectly on the samples that were shipped, but when the machine was shipped to Alberta, the altitude being higher, the machine did not work and they had many problems. I am glad to know that it is now in operation. It is a convenient way of merchandising soft coals. I do not know what acceptance that product would have in Ontario. It appeared to be a large brick, about the size of an ordinary building tile. I think an educational campaign will have to be carried on if it is going to be used on any large scale in eastern Canada.
One of the difficulties in selling western coal in the east is that the equipment down here is designed for anthracite coals and other United States coals. Before western coals can be used satisfactorily an educational program will have to be carried on, and in some instances conversion of burning equipment will have to take place.
About the beginning of the last shipping season I had several Ontario coal dealers in my office begging for Alberta coal. They said: "We cannot place an order anywhere, in Drumheller valley or anywhere else". The reason for that is that Alberta coal does not store very well, and consequently none is shipped until the heating season begins. At that time the Alberta mines are unable to deliver all the coal that is requested.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the minister permit a question? Does that apply to all Alberta coals, that they are not capable of being stored?


George Prudham: No, it does not.


John Horne Blackmore: It applies in a general way?


George Prudham: In a general way, yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would that include briquettes?


George Prudham: No; I was coming to that. I think the operators are on the right track now in turning to briquetting, to this "fabri-coal" and to other methods. I think that probably will contribute to some extent to the solution of their problems.


John Horne Blackmore: Before the minister goes on, can he give us offhand the names of the Alberta coals that will store successfully; that is, Drumheller coal, for example, and Nordegg coal? What mines produce coal that will store?


George Prudham: I do not wish to give any trade names at this time; I do not think it would be fair, but generally speaking-


John Horne Blackmore: If you give us the mines-


George Prudham: No, I prefer not to do that. It is up to the coal miners themselves to advertise their product. Generally speaking the mountain coals are more easily stored than the prairie coals.
As to the subvention, there was no appreciable increase in the freight rate on coal from western Canada to eastern Canada from 1933 to 1950. When that increase went into effect in 1950 the subvention rate was changed upward to keep Alberta coal competitive in eastern Canada. The question at the moment, as I understand it, is not one of markets; it is a question of consumer acceptance. In that field the coal operators themselves have a big job to do. The coal board is willing to help in every way possible, but the onus is on private enterprise. It is up to them to make an all-out effort.
The coal operators and I believe the Alberta government co-operated last fall in negotiating with the railways to forestall a further increase in freight rates. That effort was successful. I understand they are now negotiating with the railways to ascertain, if possible, the out of pocket costs of hauling coal, with a view to trying to forestall any further increases in the near future. I think that answers the question.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Can the minister tell us the tonnage of briquettes that came from Alberta last year?


Mr. Hansell:: I was interested in hearing the minister say in answer to a question of the hon. member for Red Deer that it was not the function of the coal board to advertise Canadian coal, and that he was not desirous of being a Joe-boy for the coal mining
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys industry. I am sure we from Alberta have no desire to make one of our Alberta colleagues a Joe-boy for any industry. Perhaps the minister has forgotten that evidently there must be a few Joe-boys in the government, because some of the departments do advertise the industries connected with them. I would point out specifically the Department of Fisheries which carries on quite an advertising campaign on behalf of the fishing industry. I do not think the minister would care to say that the Minister of Fisheries is a Joe-boy for the fishing industry. The Department of Trade and Commerce carries on quite a campaign on behalf of certain industries in the expectation that they might bring some business to those industries. Over the years I have spoken on behalf of the coal mining industry in Alberta. When I was first elected I tried, in my small way, to study the coal mining industry, and I decided to make a speech about it each year. Evidently, however, my speeches were not very powerful, because it appears I cannot get very much action from the government in respect of any over-all national coal policy.
Perhaps as the years have passed I have weakened a little in my efforts. I carried on a sort of annual speech-making event on behalf of the coal mining industry. This is my seventeenth year in the House of Commons and I do not propose to repeat my speech this year, because I do not expect it would bring any better results than it has in the past.
The picture is a dismal one. In the past years I have seen no change in the government's attitude toward the coal mining industry, and toward bringing into existence a coal mining policy that would give some hope to what would now appear to be a dying industry. Yet nothing seems to have changed. The coal is the same kind of coal we have mined for years; the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway are just the same; they still run their trains on the same tracks. Although there may have been some changes in methods and equipment, the coal mines are the same and the consumers are the same. We have industries as well as domestic consumers in Canada. The unfortunate thing is that the government is the same. We have had the same government for a number of years. All this adds up to one thing, and that is that the coal situation is just the same and it does not look as though there will be much improvement in the future.
We still have no coal policy; we have no stability for the industry, and it has no future. I would hope that perhaps later on we might have no Liberal government.
3474	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys Sometimes however a show is made at attempting something. Over the years there have been a number of coal inquiries and commissions which have resulted in a lot of data and detail. All these have made their recommendations; but I have not been able to find out where one of those recommendations has ever been accepted.


George Prudham: Would the hon. member mind repeating that? I did not hear what he said.


Ernest George Hansell: X said that over the years we have had a good many coal inquiries and commissions, but I am not aware that any recommendations of those inquiries or commissions have ever been accepted as a policy by the government. If they have been accepted, then the recommendations have been so minute that they have not made much difference.
There was quite a flurry a few years ago when the Carroll coal commission travelled across the country and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in its efforts. It was quite a show, and it gave some hope to the coal mining industry while the sittings were going on in various places. A lengthy report was published, and a good deal of valuable information appeared in it. The commission was well manned, and had on it a representative of labour as well as one from industry. In short the commission was well rounded. The report was voluminous and valuable; but what happened to it? No recommendations were adopted. It has now been filed away on some musty old shelves in government offices, and the only real use to which it has been put, evidently, is to make fodder for mice and other starving rodents.
That is the situation. The coal mining industry is concerned with the advent of the diesel engine. As the minister is aware, most of the coal mined in Alberta for industrial purposes is for use on the railroads. The diesel engine is upsetting the calculations of the coal mining industry. I would ask the minister to tell us the government's policy to keep this industry on its feet.
Referring to an earlier vote the minister said that a market for about a million tons of coal was now available. I was disappointed when he did not tell us where that market is. Evidently it is a new one somewhere, and I would ask him to tell us where it is, because a million tons would make a worth-while addition to what we already have.


George Prudham: I do not agree with the hon. member when he refers to coal mining as a dying industry, any more than I would agree to gold mining being described as a dying industry. Coal mining is fundamental to


our industrial life. I believe, so far as Canada is concerned, that when the gas and oil that has captured the imagination of the public at the present time, and for very good reason, has been used up, coal will be very important. It does any industry good to have a little squeeze once in a while, and I think the coal industry is no exception. They will have to improve their methods if they wish to survive. That process may be a little painful, but I believe it will survive.
The dominion coal board was created to do and is now doing everything possible to assist the industry through this period of transition. Through advertising the coal board does everything possible to promote the use of Canadian coal in Canada. We do not advertise Alberta coal specifically, but we direct our efforts toward benefiting the coal industry of Canada generally.
I believe the Alberta government, with which my hon. friend is very friendly, has definite responsibilities in respect of Alberta coal. The gas and oil development which is contributing to the prosperity of Alberta and of the Alberta government especially is doing more than diesels to put the coal industry of Alberta out of business. Therefore I feel that the Alberta government has a direct responsibility to the coal industry.
Recently the Alberta government allocated a certain amount of gas for export to the Pacific coast. That will affect a very important market for Alberta coal and will create a further problem for the coal industry of that province. I believe the Alberta government will measure up to its responsibility because it has been most co-operative so far. I certainly hope they will go much further.
If my hon. friend would like to know what has happened as a result of the reports of royal commissions on the coal industry and so on, I suggest that' he read our annual report.


Ernest George Hansell: The minister referred to a million tons.


George Prudham: The report I put on the record was made by the fuels branch of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. That market is wherever it can meet competition. There is a market anywhere in Ontario for Alberta coal if it can meet competition.


Ernest George Hansell: If that is the answer, why limit it to one million tons, why not five million or ten million tons? The minister mentioned specifically that there was a market for one million tons. That was the figure he read from the document and I would like to know where it is. So far we have had no answer. It is like a dog chasing his

own tail, it just gets nowhere. However, if that is the minister's answer I shall not press it, as I understand we want to get on with the items tonight.


George Prudham: The present transportation facilities from western Canada would limit the movement of coal to Ontario to not more than half a million tons per year. At the present time there is a competitive market for an additional three-quarters of a million tons of Canadian coal in Quebec. That would make more than a million tons.


Clarence Gillis: Is the mechanization of the maritime coal industry making satisfactory progress? I notice the production is down this year as compared with last.


George Prudham: The progress to date of the mechanization program is not satisfactory either to the dominion coal board or to the operators. Many difficulties have been encountered, largely due to the defence program. They have been unable to get certain types of electrical equipment. They are changing from a compressed air to an electrical operation, and it has been difficult to make the hoped-for progress. We are keeping closely in touch with it. One engineer from the department went there a few weeks ago, and we are sending two more in the fall of the year.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is the department trying to work out new methods of using Alberta coal for the manufacture of chemicals and other things?


George Prudham: New equipment is being installed at the moment in the Booth street laboratory for the hydrogenation of coal and other heavy fuels. In this connection they deal with very high pressures.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is turning it into liquid?


George Prudham: We are experimenting with turning it into liquid, and also trying to develop new combustion methods.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Under normal circumstances we would pursue certain matters a little further, but due to the lateness of the hour and I am sure the anxiety of the minister to get his estimates through, in co-operation with the committee, so we can get on to external affairs tomorrow, we will forgo asking further questions. We have expressed our feelings to the minister and to the government, and no doubt when we next have a chance we will bring up this matter again.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys 247. Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council, $6,000,000.
Agar Rodney Adamson: I do not want to be cast in the role of a prophet, but I would not be at all surprised if some of the younger members now in the house will some day see coal being used mainly not as a fuel but in the production of synthetic materials in the petrochemical industry. What research is being done in developing by-products from coal?


George Prudham: Other than the hydrogenation project we have no specific undertakings at the present time. The men in the department keep in close touch with experiments being carried on in the United States. We do not undertake any experimental work that is being duplicated elsewhere in Canada or the United States where we have access to the results.


Agar Rodney Adamson: This department is responsible for the production of probably $1,500 million worth of products which form the sinews of most of our manufacturing and which will become more and more important as the years go by. I suggest to the minister that at the next session the committee on mines, forests and waters be convened so that the experts of the department, the directors and others, may come and inform members as to what is being done. I think that is one of the essential jobs of the technical personnel in the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we will
consider the estimates of the following departments:	external affairs, secretary of state,
defence production, post office and, if hon. members wish, public works.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
General services-
141.	Departmental administration, $294,900.
142.	Information and educational service, including $3,500 for grants to fisheries exhibitions, $136,600.
143.	Markets and economics service, $194,600.
144.	Administrative expenses of the Newfoundland fisheries board, $33,900.
145.	Industrial development service, $40,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
146.	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 26, 1947, $700,000.
Field services-
147.	Field services administration, $417,500. Protection branch-
148.	Operation and maintenance, $2,747,294.
149. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $169,340.
Inspection branch-
150.	Operation and maintenance, $907,438.
151. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $32,850.
Fish culture and development branch-
152.	Operation and maintenance, $711,835.
153. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $193,190.
154.	Consumer branch, $46,060.
155.	To provide for the destruction of harbour and and gray seals, $45,000.
Fisheries research board-
156.	Headquarters administration, $92,794.
157.	Operation and maintenance, $1,759,395.
158. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $184,225.
International commissions-
159.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international fisheries commission appointed under treaty dated January 29, 1937, between Canada and the United States for the preservation of the north Pacific halibut fisheries, $52,750.
160.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission appointed under treaty dated May 26, 1930, between Canada and the United States for the protection, preservation and extension of the Sockeye salmon fisheries of the Fraser river system, $164,200.
161.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission to overcome obstructions to the ascent of sockeye salmon at Hell's Gate canyon and for investigating and overcoming obstructions to such salmon at other points on the Fraser river watershed (revote), $8,000.
162.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international whaling commission, appointed pursuant to the international convention for the regulation of whaling, dated at Washington, December 2, 1946, $2,500.
163.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international commission for the northwest Atlantic fisheries appointed pursuant to international conventions for the investigation, protection and conservation of the fisheries of the northwest Atlantic ocean, dated at Washington, February 8, 1949, $20,000.
Special-
164.	To provide for operation and maintenance of Newfoundland bait service, $342,500.
165.	To provide for the extension of educational work in co-operative producing and selling among fishermen, $80,000.
166.	To provide for administration expenses of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944, $80,625.
167.	To provide for assistance in the construction of vessels of the dragger and/or long liner type, subject to such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $150,000.

168.	To provide for assistance in the construction of bait freezing and storage facilities, subject to the approval of the governor in council, $30,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-D epartment-
Administration services-
221.	Departmental administration, $431,397.
Explosives Act administration-
222. Explosives Act-administration,	operation and maintenance, $89,404.
Mines branch-
223.	Mines branch administration, $73,589.
Mineral resources investigations-
224.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,998,887.
225.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $233,000.
Investigations of radioactive ores-
226.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $301,418,
227.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $49,500.
228.	To provide for payments to McGill university in connection with the development of a coal-fired gas turbine, $120,000.
Geological survey of Canada-
Geological surveys-
229.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including the expenses of the national advisory committee on research in the geological sciences, and an amount of $2,200 for Canada's share of the cost of the committee on mineral resources and geology, London, England, $2,202,873.
230.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $124,500.
Surveys and mapping branch-
231.	Surveys and mapping branch administration, $40,796.
Topographical surveys, including expenses of the Canadian board on geographical names-
232.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,517,395.
233.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $103,000.
Canadian hydrographic service-
234.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including Canada's annual contribution of $5,750 to the international hydrographic bureau, $2,083,822.
235.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $191,615.
236.	Geodetic survey of Canada-administration, operation and maintenance, $686,473.
237.	International boundary commission-administration, operation and maintenance, $61,292.
238.	Legal surveys and aeronautical charts-administration, operation and maintenance, including a grant of $350 to the Canadian Institute of Surveying and Photogrammetry, and the expenses of the board of examiners for dominion land surveyors and payment of fees of B. W. Waugh, J. E. Lilly and J. E. E. Ross, members of the board, and A. W. Cole, secretary of the board, $630,195.

Map compilation and reproduction-
239.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $667,443.
240.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $11,925.
Geographical branch-
241.	Geographical branch-Administration, operation and maintenance, $233,218.
Dominion observatories-
Dominion observatory, Ottawa and field stations-
242.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including membership fee of $500 to the international astronomical union, $381,244.
243.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $119,950.
Supply
244.	Dominion astrophysical observatory, Victoria, B.C.-administration, operation and maintenance, $104,556.
General-
245.	Payments to Royal Canadian Air Force and commercial companies for air photography, and to defray the expenses of the interdepartmental committee on air surveys, $1,200,000.
B-Dominion coal board-
246.	Administration and investigations of the dominion coal board, $111,753.
247.	Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council, $6,000,000.
55704-220J
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 20, 1952